Funny how intolerance for boredom is framed as the problem, rather than the boredom itself.
> incarcerated students really want to learn
They also really want to see the sky. It's good that students in general don't behave as if they are incarcerated.
> children under the age of two are already spending more than an hour per day on screens
Most two-year-olds can fit an hour of Cocomelon into their busy schedule. Kids, like adults, are going to burn a few hours every day vegging out. Before the phone screen, it was the TV screen, which was worse.
> And they have a level of apathy that I’ve never seen before in my whole career. Punishments don’t work because they don’t care about them. They don’t care about grades. They don’t care about college.
Perhaps students increasingly feel that the things above obstruct and delay their future, rather than prepare them for it. Perhaps we should consider how to make school more relevant and engaging to them, rather than how to impoverish their lives outside of school.
There’s the predictable boogeyman reactions. All phone/tablet use is bad. But that’s not what this article is about.
The other reactions are from those of us looking at measurable changes in kids behaviour, that started with the introduction of the smart phone, and can easily be explained by fairly solid studies linking it to the kind of media kids consume on these devices.
Phones/tablets can be both good and bad, like any technology. But the level to which it can be bad for us humans (not just kids) is on a completely different level.
It’s funny that you mention TV, because there’s a solid argument to be made that TV has also ruined a generation, but it doesn’t really hit until they get older, and start to be glued to day time TV, which rapidly deteriorates them physically and mentally, and has caused some serious political issues from having a huge block of voters voting based on companies trying to scare them all day every day with made-up issues so they stay engaged.
Now it’s not just old folks that have 24/7 access to addictive media. It’s kids, and depending on your job situation, working age adults as well.
The form that TV and (talk show) radio has taken in the last few decades in USA was perhaps the first iteration of the true underlying issue we have with phones/tablets: companies becoming way too good at keeping people from engaged, addicted, anxious and angry, all to make more and more profit above all else.
It's like a candy store open 24/7 - completely free and always within reach. Even adults have a hard time to resist TikTok and YT Shorts and the like.
The Internet has changed since I was a kid browsing through GeoCities webrings and the Yahoo Directory while searching with AltaVista. Generations of technology enthusiasts have to acknowledge that the internet of the past is no more and cannot be brought to our children as such.
The temptations we faced then were nothing compared to what children today have to resist.
Just as many countries regulate advertisements aimed at minors, we need to start regulating screen time for kids - before they get pulled into the vortex of influencers and endlessly accessible, mentally corrosive entertainment.
(That’s the good news. The bad news is that our education system, from federal level on down to the individual school board, will readily jump in and agree, but then require metrics and other “measurables” to show that students are cranking out “learning outcomes.” So with the best will in the world, and genuine interest in our kids and their lives as a predicate to meaningful learning in an otherwise highly artificial classroom setting, you as a teacher are stuck banging your head against an immovable concrete wall that gets refreshed annually with million dollar consultant contracts for outsiders who spend two hours every two weeks in your school to tell you what you need to do to reach your students. And at some point, you just say fuck you to all of it.)
You can, and probably should, ban phones from school, but that won't fix that cult of ignorance [1] dictating every policy made on education.
[1] https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ASIMOV_1980_C...
I shudder thinking what managing theses people will be like. I've heard from someone who is managing recent grads that it's awful.
Obviously these are generalizations, not everyone is like that, etc. But this is a real problem. Pretending it's just old people not like change is sweeping it under the carpet. Tech has (deliberately) gotten more and more addictive and it's badly screwing people up.
Our oldest, our daughter, has had a few jobs working in her craftland, and both loved it and was loved by her fellow employees and customers.
Our son is an open chess champion who is beloved by his chess club compariots. When he played out of his mind and won the open tournament, the cool part was that his chess club mates were really happy that he won, and a parent of one of his friends excitedly told me how happy they were. Even thought his son was much younger, my son's friendliness and kindness really endeared him to that young Indian boy.
The question is, "Why?"
First off, we're not particularly religious at home. We sometimes pray before meals, but we tend to eat when we're hungry, i.e. not all together, always. We rarely pray together because I feel strongly that religion is a personal affair. I also do not pray in front of them, to prevent putting any kind of pressure on them towards my preference. We Sufis feel there is no superiority in one form of religion over others, and I manifest that most deeply by letting them know that their path is theirs to choose. I'm only here to love them and teach them how to be lovingly kind and respectful to others.
Second, and probably most importantly: they have never had unfettered access to the Internet and we have no TV of any kind, and they do not have or use smartphones or social media of any kind (except our daughter is a good navigator in the car).
We did have Hulu for a minute, but mainly for the powerful "Summer of Soul". We have also watched some Tubi for, for example, "Death on the Nile" and a few select others. And the old Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series are a mainstay, as well as a few select movies, such as the Avengers series and "Knives Out", but it is very minimal, nothing too sexy, and nothing at all too violent.
And ZERO internet or social media. Sure, we might look some stuff up, we watch some stuff like Tosh Show (after I pre-screen it), but stuff more like Veritasium (that they love), and some random YT videos we find interesing. Plus, we watch a fair bit of NHKOnline for Design Stories, 72 Hours, and, of course, Grand Sumo Highlights (just for how entirely foreign and intense that sport is) for maybe a decade now. They have their favorite EPL and Serie A teams, plus Champion's League, as they like to knock the ball around at the park. My son and I follow the NBA through a few pods (while he chesses online on his computer, which is in the living room with this one, our "media computer") and the occasional highlight.
My point here is that I keep their media appetites satiated with interesting, curated content, but they're spared the titilating fiction that I grew up on. The only horror movie they've seen (multiple times) is Jordan Peele's fantastic "Nope". But absolutely no gratuitous sex stuff, whatsoever, not that we don't have the occasional conversation about such stuff. And we watch a bit of comedy, with three of Tom Papa's stand-up specials on Tubi being a big recent hit.
The important thing is that we human beings have a part of us that gravitates towards the lewd and lascivious, and our media is naturally permeated with it, and they just don't need it, and my approach has worked. They help the family around the house because they understand that they're valuable parts of the team and that doing good work is good for everyone. And when they do catch wind of something gross (usually said by a comedian), they appreciate that we'll talk about it but that we screen off that part of the world for them.
I was exposed to porn at a young age (6th grade recycling dumpster "Oui" magazines) and then Playboy Channel and HBO in my early teens. No teenager needs Animal House or Porky's in their lives. Being homeschooled (our daughter's choice because middle school orientation was brutal, and our son to play more chess), they're also not socialized by kids with smartphones who watch "Game of Thrones" rapescenes and whatnot.
My daughter has listened to and/or read half of my favorite author William Gibson's novels, plus Anna Karenina and lots and lots of other literature plus Langston Hughes' own poetry collection plus the biographies of some famous women. We all together listened to 2018ish's Pullitzer Prize-winning 900pg biography of Frederick Douglass (5-6 hours/day for 2-3 weeks, weekends off), so they know how brutal America is to Black folks, and how talented and capable they are. And my son and I have listened to Stephen E. Ambrose's "D-Day" and "Citizen Soldier" multiple times, and we all love his book and Tom Hanks' miniseries "Band of Brothers". My son and I have also listened to a lot of the excellent podcast "Fall of Civilizations".
They understand the importance of love and they know enough of history to understand how brutal most of this world has been and still is, to some extent. We watched Jan6's debacle unfold live on CNN's live website, to our shared horror. That this orange bastard pardoned those fuckers is truly evil, and my kids understand that full-well. We hold no ethnic animus, or consider ourselves superior in any way to others, except perhaps in our worldview that centers on universal compassion, kindness, and mutual respect.
They have NEVER -- and I mean NEVER -- had an ill word said against them by anyone, ever, and that's no exaggeration. A teacher of our daughter's cried on their last day when she pulled me aside to tell me how much she will miss our daughter, and our son was chosen to be in the 4th grade class that spent part of the day mainstreaming ASD kids; he was chosen for his kindness. We love and care for each other, without even having to ask. We enjoy hanging out and we laugh a LOT, with each other, at each other, and, most importantly, at ourselves.
So, when I say that nothing in the universe is more important than we human beings choosing compassion, for one and all, I mean it, and I have the fucking proof. And when I say we're living in a world full of purblind fools who are destroying this world with their ignorant selfishness, I know what I'm talking about.
Wake up to compassion, my friends. Both your and our collective happiness is at stake.
"There's still time to change the road you're on." --Stairway to Heaven
And I've always sworn around the kids and let them swear freely (but only in the house), because that's the only way to learn the difference between profane and vulgar. Fucking is a very useful word, so long as it's not the verb form, but even that rule was broken when, at the end of Bale's Batman trilogy, Ras al Ghoul's daugher betrays him, after having slept with him, my wife asked why she did both those things, our daughter replied,
"She fucked him before she fucked him."
I couldn't be prouder that she both understands that truth and knows enough to not say it in public.
Young people today simply realize, either consciously, or subconsciously, that they live in a broken world and are being forced against their will to play a rigged game they cannot win. Distraction and apathy are the only logical reactions to world that exclusively measures a person's value in monetary terms and does not give a single fuck about them beyond whatever "Value" they can create for soulless corporations their self-serving, narcissistic billionaire owners.
Sure they could buckle down, study hard, get into a good college and work 60-80 hours a week for the rest of their lives, but even if they did all that they're still not guaranteed a decent life. They're not guaranteed to own a home, drive a nice car, take an annual vacation, or put away money for retirement. They're not even guaranteed a roof over their heads and meal on the table.
The social contract that underwrites the entire western world has been fundamentally altered, as where once studying hard and doing all the things you're "Supposed to do" as a young person could at least guarantee you a pretty decent life, young people today have no guarantee of a better future whatsoever regardless of how hard they work or how talented they might be.
This is an odd metaphor, but it just popped it my head so I'm going to try it out.
It's like for generations there's been a boat and a dock. The young people while away their days on the dock, swimming and fishing for minnows and the adults take the boat out each day (generation) and return with a fish. Each day (generation) the fish the adults have come back with has gotten bigger and bigger, and so the youngsters would get excited that when it was their turn to go out fishing they might catch an even bigger fish. The last couple days (generations) the adults have come how with fish that were the same size as the day (generation) before or maybe even a little smaller, but the kids didn't think to much of it and were still excited to get out fishing and catch their own fish. This most recent generation the adults came back with the smallest fish yet, and oh, by, the way, the boat has a leak and is sinking and its also on fire.
We're basically wondering why the kids aren't excited to go fishing when we're giving them a sinking boat that's also on fire.
Of course they'd rather splash around in the shallows and fish for minnows when the best alternative we're giving them is a sinking ship.
Probably people have felt this way throughout all of history but this time seems different.
> Students are literally finding it too hard to think. So they can’t learn new things.
First, I have mixed feelings about this. The first part is right but the second part isn't. And it illustrates part of the problem. They can learn new things but we are not incentivizing them to.The thing is we need to rethink how we educate people. In fact, I think we need to rethink a lot of things. The problem here is you need to ask a lot of "why" questions. What I do like about the article is that it does talk about the addiction in short form mediums. That instant gratification. This is definitely part of the problem, but I'd argue extends far beyond students and isn't just from social media.
Further upstream, I think a problem we have is over-metricization. Or what one might call bureaucracy. I've been calling it "Goodhart's Hell". The reason Goodhart's Law is a thing is because you can never perfectly align a metric to the thing you actually want to measure. So no matter how good your algorithm is[0] it won't be perfectly aligned. You need to evaluate beyond the metric and watch for drift. Goodhart's Law is more a warning about how people are good optimizers, so if you strongly incentivize the metric and only the metric, you end up with a billion cobras while trying to eradicate them[1].
So students are kinda doing what students have done for awhile. We've been having this conversation with cheating and we've had jokes about how you remember material for the test and immediately forget it after. These things are indicative of misalignment! Part of the problem here is that so much pressure is put on getting good grades that you will punish students for being honest. You punish students for struggling and gaining deep learning while you reward those who look up solution manuals and get homeworks from peers or even ask GPT. This is the root of the problem, and we can't solve these things until we rethink this. This is in the same way that we've created these addiction machines like TikTok, YouTube Shorts, and others. We strongly fit the metric at the expense of fitting our goal. We all know people who did really bad in school and on tests like SATs and stuff but are brilliant. Similarly we also know people who did amazing on all those things yet are bumbling idiots. Those are just examples of misalignment. Weirdly the more meritocratic you try to make things the less meritocratic things become. Not because you impose metrics, but because you overfit metrics.
What's happening to students? It's the same thing that's happening to everyone else.
I think we really need to rethink a lot of this. Luckily, there is action that a lot of you on HN can do! The problem is created through lots of small effects, thus the solution needs to be too. If you are just a junior engineer, ask questions about how well aligned a metric is to the goal. At worst you learn something, at best you make the product better. If you are a senior, think carefully about these things and encourage your team to too. Expertise is about understanding depth and nuance, so encourage that! If you're a manager, IT IS YOUR JOB TO CAREFULLY ENSURE THINGS ARE WELL ALIGNED. That's one of the most important things you can do!
I know a lot of the pushback, and I hear "but you can't assign value to <x>". But here's the thing, all those numbers are fucking made up anyways. Use your expertise and try to make products better. Not better defined by what makes share value go up or your manager says is "value" but just make the user experience better! Make things that make peoples' lives better! That was the promise of computing in the first place and why it created these billion dollar companies. I promise the money will follow. There is nothing stopping us from making money hand over fist WHILE making good products that make peoples lives better. If you believe these are at odds with one another, then do you really just want to build a dystopian Sci-Fi future? Are you really just okay "sacrificing your soul" for a paycheck? While I understand the calculus isn't so easy for everyone, we are talking about a field where $100k-$400k salaries are not uncommon, and you definitely have a choice in those ranges. But importantly, be a little grumpy. After all, that's your job as a developer/engineer/researcher: to find problems and fix them.
Tldr: think carefully if you want to enable others to think carefully
[0] I'll admit the irony of me saying this. I am extremely math oriented and work in machine learning (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43442631)
This seems wildly naive. Everyone working at Meta knows that the sum total of their work is giving teen girls depression more efficiently.
They don’t care or they’ve made excuses or they’ve made up a story about how that’s not really what they’re working on - that’s those other people, their work is different.
This has always been the issue of the internet: It's good at giving us what we want. It's just that many times, what we want is really bad for us. The same tool that finds friends that share a hobby is the same whether the hobby is building gundams or participating in conspiracy thinking.
So what I expect we'll see is outcome divergence. For some people it's a great boon. For others, the worst thing we could have done for them. What made someone successful in the 1980s might be very different in the 2030s
And of course the author likes criminals more.
A bit concerned about the hyper-stimulation but this actually gives me a lot of hope and I think it'll be worth it. What the teachers are concerned about here is their pathetic institution of teaching which has not revolutionized with the time. It's amazing (is that the right word?) that the teacher is annoyed by his students "cheating" on the test but they don't see the fallacy of determining one's trajectory through a single point (1 hour exam).
The system is pathetic and hopefully the new generation is smarter, sees it for what it is, spends its time on screen/video games and let these bureaucrats infinitely scratch their heads.
> And they have a level of apathy that I’ve never seen before in my whole career. Punishments don’t work because they don’t care about them. They don’t care about grades. They don’t care about college.
This made my day...
If screens per-se are the problem, we'd have seen the same issues manifesting decades ago.
I think phones are the issue, rather than screens, specifically social media and notifications in particular. Someone suggested turning notifications off for social media, and it was a big change in my life, and something I've urged my own children to do as well.
I invite the author to count the percentage of people or students looking at their phone screen while crossing the road. That's the percent that need saving. The rest are fine.
Not to mention, who actually cares? Not every aspect of learning is going to be fun. Sometimes you have to sit down and memorize times tables, or read about an important historical event you just have zero passion for. That’s okay.
As for the screen-time, it’s not about having enough hours in the day, it’s about the concerns regarding what this is doing to kids. Losing out on interaction with your parents because they throw the iPad at you when they’re tired of parenting is probably affecting kids in some unknown way. If it were just an hour a day, probably nobody would be complaining about it.
As for kids thinking college or grades somehow obstruct their future… I have no idea how you overcome such ignorance. I’m actually at a loss for that one.
Things (gasp) change. Teachers should be looking for funding to keep up with changes, not shitting on kids. If you dont like the kids, get out of education.
Honestly, its very likely that the vast majority of your curriculum is simply not useful or relevant to them, they have no interest or connection with you, and you have made no effort to engage them.
I believe there to be a difference between slide rule/calculator - calculator/smart phone that cannot be generalized.
New technology changes the context for raising young people. Phones probably won't turn the globe into deliquents, but we do need to consider how to teach children long term focus, educate them to spot misinformation, and give them a whole bunch of skills they wouldn't have needed 15 years ago.
New technology probably won't stop the next generation from thriving, but the current generation of parents, teachers and voters completely ignoring new issues facing kids, and hoping they fix themselves, just might.
> "Mommy and Daddy were checking in all day long saying, 'I miss you and can’t wait to see you,'" Hochul told the NYT. "That’s a parental need, not a student need."
I'm interpreting the message that students should not have a phone at all or at least in limited capacity.
It's not that simple, because as the article says, "these children are getting turned into screen addicts long before they enter the school system" and "they are in a constant state of dopamine withdrawal at school".
Idk why everyone's freaking out.
The kids are already much better at spotting misinformation than the older generations are, as I'm sure anyone with boomer relatives on Facebook will have noticed.
My computer studies teacher would teach us about ergonomics and warcraft.
Whereas, exploiting the school systems taught me far more.
Heck we had VB6 compilers installed on school systems, but got maybe 1 week of curriculum over 3 years. However they were very good for building my first nefarious apps.
Theres an expectation by many students that you can just meet all class obligations and receive a proper education. But really, class metrics are for ass covering. You need to use that time, when the world isnt trying to squeeze you for labor, to actually learn things.
I think we should take a look at the education system and figure out how to make it better align with what actually interests kids instead of trying to force them to learn what we think suits them.
Most kids would get off their phones if school was interesting to them. Sure, you'll always have bad apples.
Rather than trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, we should realize there's a mismatch and try to correct it.
Phones are a problem, but they aren't THE problem.
School itself is the problem, and has been for a VERY long time.
and here we all are.
<< Tldr: think carefully if you want to enable others to think carefully
It is not a secret on what works in education. There is no real secret sauce. Some things are well known and apparent even to the casual observer, but, and it is not a small but, it does not pay the bills of the cottage industry that has grown around education. For example, it is easier to throw money at everything, but ensuring small class sizes, which dramatically affect long term outcomes. I am not cynical. At least in US, I do not understand how anyone can pretend anything else is true.
Or to quote Socrates on the invention of writing:
>For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.
Newborn Babies do not ask to watch YouTubes while being fed ultra-processed food.
It’s the parents who purchase all those electronic devices to their children. I gather that they do it because shutting them off is illegal and irreversible
What could possibly go wrong where the only person with any real choice is an administrator who doesn't bear the cost or benefit of his own actions? The incentives could hardly be more misaligned.
Meanwhile "As the New York Times reports, schools where smart devices have been partially or fully banned during instructional hours have seen incredible increases in student attentiveness and communication."
As much as their opinion page sucks, I'm much more inclined to go with the reporting in the New York Times instead of someone who says "zombie apologists" in all sincerity.
To me "dopamine addiction" feels a bit of a figure of speech to make people quickly understand and relate to the problems of social feeds and especially short form content. But is there any science behind it that could classify it as an addiction?
I would find it hard to imagine that kids at school are in physical pain and psychically unable to do something (which would be symptoms of real withdrawal). I think it's more reasonable that they are just bored and annoyed because they can't access their favorite form of entertainment. I remember how bored (and restless to go home) I was in middle school the day after I bought and started playing GTA: San Andreas, is it that different?
I'm sure the education system need to update a lot of ways of teaching as they are indeed outdated and extremely uninteresting to a young audience, but I also think that phones should absolutely not be allowed in a class rooms (same way we couldn't play a videogame or watch tv in there).
Seriously what's the point of even having a national identity if you are a renter in your own country.
Housing is the biggest crisis that no government truly wants to fix
"First of all the kids have no ability to be bored whatsoever. They live on their phones. And they’re just fed a constant stream of dopamine from the minute their eyes wake up in the morning until they go to sleep at night.
Because they are in a constant state of dopamine withdrawal at school, they behave like addicts. They’re super emotional. The smallest things set them off."
FWIW, I was one of the cheering parents. But you can't enact policy when half of the parents are against it. And this is at a school that is top 20 (out of 1100) in the state, I can't imagine what it is like for the bottom 50% of schools.
Being "connected" is basically a requirement instead of a cool hobby you can do after hours now, and so your data gets stolen 24x7, and you get advertised / marketed to, regardless of how resistant you are, eventually, it gets you.
And well.. feeling a bit like those people in 1930s germany.. "No good can come of this".. Just not sure where to run to anymore - most countries have their (virtual) walls up too (no visas), and the one out (Canada) isn't necessarily a sure thing as a backup..
You're assuming that people in the past were wrong when they felt that way. People love to bring up Socrates being charged with "corrupting the youth" in 399 BC but always seem to forget that Athens was conquered by the more rural, agrarian, and presumably more socially conservative Macedonians 60 years later.
> Poor and marginalized communities are hurt the most. As your income drops, your children’s screen time more than doubles.
The children of tech workers and tech leaders are not harmed as much by their products.
There is quite a bit of analysis out there how to trigger addictive behavior for anything from news site to games. Mainly so that they can maximally abuse this.
I think the right way would be to regulate that, not so dissimilar to how we regulate drugs.
Which yes can, in a roundabout way, bring us back to age restricting some otherwise seemingly harmless games.
But its in generally a different approach as it also pulls in the adult, general public awareness both for childs and adult, tries to also reduce drug, eh dopamine fix, consumption in adults etc.
E.g. if auto scrolling short are classified as addictive similar to drugs (through not quite the same) you then can e.g. require YT to allow people to disable shorts, or "auto scrolling, swipe next" display of shorts. Or limit how they can be on search results etc. This probably will also help with addictive gamba games frequently bankrupting adults etc.
> Even adults have a hard time to resist TikTok and YT Shorts and the like.
I removed them from YT using ad block, through there isn't a way to do so on a phone/tablet without using 3rd party YT apps :/
My house cost like 20% of almost anyone else in my area by just doing it myself without any code inspections. All it takes is courage to bypass the conventional system, society was wrong and I won by calling bullshit.
In my 30s and I make a habit of asking people in the generations above me if they felt the same when they were younger / my age. As in, did things always seem this futile, clogged, and broken?
The answer is always "no".
There’s good comedy in recognizing how you feel about it isn’t unique in time and then following up with thinking this time it’s different.
Everyone thinks this time is different. The kids think they’re the first ones to really want change and the old folks thinks this new generation is really the bad one. The kids are rebelling against you and when you were a kid you weren’t paying enough attention to understand what was going on in the world.
If the world stayed the same and you thought the same way as you did when you were a kid and the next generation thought the same way as you do now, we’d still be living as animals.
You can focus on whatever is wrong in the world or you can be fearful of new tech as everyone who ages is wont to do, or you can focus on the excitement of entering a new age and the inevitable good that will bring. One day soon deaths from car wrecks may go to near zero. Robotics will be able to produce healthy food cheaply as well as handle all sorts of menial labor. AI is empowering people to "vibe code" and build games and software with just their imagination. It's a very groovy time.
I agree. I think the key point from the article is this: "they behave like addicts". The "dopamine" part is inessential to the diagnosis. Smartphones are like a drug, similar to or analogous to a drug. If they were literally a drug, causing overt physical withdrawal symptoms, then we might have taken the problem more seriously already.
/s
yes but that is partially unrelated and has a lot to do with
- one child politics lead to abrupt fall of new young unemployed people
- so the reaming people have to work more
- and as they need to pay rent for the old people even more more more
Here is an interview with kids in 1966 about what they think life will be like in future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS8xX3usi4c
> I am simply not sure we can really add anything truly new.
I do not like these types of attitudes. Defeatist (I apologize if I'm misinterpreting).Our world has progressed so we have strong evidence that we can add new things. Not only that, but we can make things better! It wasn't long ago people shit in a bucket and threw it out their window. While there's a lot of shit now I have no doubt things, in the long run, have improved. Even if things are worse now than 5 or 10 years, in the long run things improve.
The other part is that just because you're a small cog in a large machine doesn't mean you can't change things. I very much understand this feeling and I think it's natural too! But the cog is needed, even if there's some redundancy. You don't have to be a giant cog to have impact.
The reason so much goes wrong is also why this last part is true. Things exist in an unstable equilibrium, like an inverted pendulum. It takes little to throw things off balance (I can explain more if needed, with examples). Which is the very reason why small things matter. But there's observation bias and we can't forget. When things work smoothly we often don't think about it and all the little things that needed to go right to make that happen. But we do think when things go wrong. Of course we have this bias, because we want to relax and reduce cognitive load. But the world has gotten more complex and so we probably need to think about this more. It's becoming more important. Because as things get more complex low order approximations become less useful. It's the bitter curse of advancement. The bitter curse of adding new things. But I believe we can do it
I would say all modes of thought. Again, "Difficulty thinking or concentrating" and "Trouble learning new things".
> A generation which grew up fetishising those things
A generation? One generation? Which generation specifically are you saying fetishized thinking, concentrating, and learning new things?
> Or to quote Socrates on the invention of writing
You have to go back 2500 years to find someone else to dunk on? And do I need to point out that our knowledge of Socrates is based entirely on writing, mostly the writing of Plato, which you quote from and which consists of semi-fictional dialogues, thought experiments, not pure historical transcription?
Any time the instinct to further police kids in schools arises, I get defensive. I know what that environment is like for the kids in it, and anyone would look for an escape while trapped in there. Schools right now function as weird little child prisons, somewhere to put kids while their parents (those who aren’t rich enough to do otherwise) go to work. If the schools aren’t gonna get any better (certainly not under this administration), then why bother taking away the coping mechanisms people have available?
Quite the opposite for me. I don't have a problem with their opinion pages, because it's labelled as such and is at times interesting. I wouldn't trust their reporting though, least of all the numbers.
Lead in fuel
Normal product warranty
ingridient list
The industry has few selfregularly motivations to regulate itself. If they do, they do it after customer complains and others stealing there thunder but than i t would be too late for a few
Yes, the government has made efforts to regulate this, but the root issue remains: if an economy can’t provide enough well-paid jobs, no amount of intervention will fundamentally change the situation. The pressure will persist—it’s a structural reality, not a moral failing.
As for the term "slave," it’s a dramatic and, frankly, amusing choice of words. It perfectly captures a certain U.S. perspective on China, one that’s often shaped by narrow assumptions and ideological filters. The lens of "communism" becomes a convenient, if overly simplistic, way to frame a complex society. It’s not wrong to critique, but sometimes the framing says more about the critic than the subject itself.
You often see that argument being made that the youngest generation has lost hope and has so many mental issues because the "system is broken".
Yet, as you rightly point out, kids don't really realize those concerns. I mean, being able to afford a house or a car was the least of my concerns at that age, and I can't really see why this would have changed for the next generation.
So I'm genuinely intrigued: what could be the underlying cause(s) of that feeling of hopelessness?
Of course people still do it. But the threat that you might be forced to tear down your home at any moment just to be homeless really is not that much fun.
Edit: Oh, and a parked trailer is a building as well, of course. Just that tearing it down is a lot easier
Why not? Isn't this what sensible parents should be doing? Supervising and regulating how much time their children spend online, playing videogames, watching TV, doing homework, being sedentary, eating junk food, etc? Especially in this age of parental controls and surveillance-ware on all digital devices, it's easier than ever to monitor what your kids are up to.
Should entire societies grant the government unlimited power over online media, online speech, kids and families just because some dumb parents hand their kids a blank iPad and their credit card and let them sit around all day on it frying their brain? What about regulating just those parents instead for being that stupid? Truthfully, a lot of the people having kids are unfit to be parents.
I do believe that targeted online advertising needs to be regulated ASAP. Ad-tech is a plague on society.
Regulations came into effect as they are now due to a very long line of horrible disasters & regulatory reactions to them.
May I ask you where this is, without getting into specifics of course. Western Europe?
The teacher would give a bit of a spiel to intro the problems, but the problems themselves were very self-directed, things like "measure these triangles, square these numbers, do you notice anything?" then introing the pythagorean theorem.
The teacher would float around and basically help groups that were more stuck on things than others. But students would help each other a lot, meaning the teacher is not spending their time on people who can ultimately help themselves.
This is not a format that works for all students and all class types, but when it works it works so well, and it's extremely scalable.
I believe that OP is saying that's exactly the problem.
The issue is what kind of screen time. Stuff that just constantly presses dopamine buttons is what needs to be avoided.
It's pretty evident at this point. A degree has gone from something you get if you are genuinely interested in further learning and a career in that area to an absolute must-have if you don't want to be stuck in dead-end low-paying jobs. So yeah, the process is being seen as a gatekeeper to a successful adulthood as opposed to an opportunity, because while for some kids it may still be the latter, for all kids it is most definitely the former (and one that's likely to saddle them with a lot of debt in the process).
Think Gameboy, or Sony Watchman w/ MTV.
Well, no school subject could have competed with that. Certainly not those that require a bit of work.
That said, my initial response when I read "When you are standing in front of them trying to teach, they’re vacant" was, "back in my day, we had to do that without the benefits of smartphones." The whole article struck me as the type of ramblings we have heard from educators for millenia.
Honestly, the "advice" that I got from basically all of these chatterbots when I presented them some provocative, polarizing, "very different from ordinary thinking" political statements was far more "bossy" and "lecturing" than the judgements that basically every teacher would give. It was rather easy to get some AI models to actually stop willing to continue the communication with me.
When I was a kid, the choices were very limited. There were only 3 TV networks, and TV shows were on a fixed schedule, so you couldn't watch whatever you liked whenever you liked. Often, there was absolutely nothing good on. Moreover, watching a TV show required at least some degree of attention span: 30 or 60 minutes on one TV show. You couldn't scroll through an endless stream of 30 or 60 second videos.
As for video games, we couldn't download them from the internet. We had a very limited number of physical game cartridges. So yes, you could spend hours playing a video game, but that again required a level of focus and attention, and you were stuck with the few games you had at home.
Given the limited number of choices available to kids at the time, it was much easier to get bored with those choices, as the article mentions: "the kids have no ability to be bored whatsoever".
I'm sure that Jasleen Kaur, Kendrick Lamar, and Bethany Baptiste all have mobile phones, and yet, they were all recognized as top creators in 2024. Plenty of people with jobs they hate were dead inside long before mobile phones were invented -- they were addicted to alcohol instead. People levied the same complaints you're making about newspapers and books.
Instead of painting any technology or distraction with a broad brush, it's best to focus on the potential harms and find out who's most impacted. We can help those folks better if we don't just demonize their vice across the board.
As things are going, it looks like it's more going to bring incredible wealth to the very few. That don't pay taxes.
> It seems like the 21st century is on the cusp of becoming like the one everyone dreamed about in the 20th century.
No, to be honest, for the time being it looks like it's going to turn into a techno-fascist hell-hole.
This is a world that brings wealth to a few. It's just deeper down into the same hole we've been digging for the past 50+ years. It's a world in which individuals own nothing and have no control over their lives.
I think it may not be a bad idea. I think I understand what you are referring to, but some examples would be great.
<< Defeatist (I apologize if I'm misinterpreting).
I want to believe it is pragmatic, but I do take your points seriously and will do some self-reflection on it. I believe you are especially right about the ease with which we allow ourselves to reduce cognitive load.
In the years when I was forced to consume the mandatory blessings of the Prussian system, a common occurrence was teachers constantly blowing up at the class, with the common theme of blaming our unruly behavior on how our parents hadn't taught us how to behave. In turn, it's my understanding that my parents weren't the only parents who believed that to be the teachers' job.
Neither side seemed to realize that they were setting an example with their behavior; nor acknowledge that we were actual conscious human beings who are choosing our behaviors in response to our environment, and were we to be presented with any remotely convincing reason to shut up and listen, why, we would've gladly done so!
And of course the only reason teachers could ever muster was threats of scarier teachers or the headmaster or expulsion. Which usually worked for about a minute, threats of violence not being particularly interesting. Especially as it turned out how the new, sterner teachers actually cared to teach us stuff; the evil Director turned out to be a nice intelligent lady who was totally fed up with herding "credentialed experts" in shrill schoolmarming; and expulsion would've been the path to salvation, were it not for the parents who feared it like the devil.
To think how good-faith we were as kids, and how ridiculously did society fail so many of us. Our only responsibilities as such were to inform our parents of the frequent irregular parent-teacher conferences which were mainly teachers begging for money and complaining about our behavior and, and twice a year have the teachers sign a note confirming that we were going to school, so the parents could claim some form of welfare payment.
Therefore, we had to learn it all from TV, CS1.6, GTA and later PornHub. Now we're in the White House -- or in the trenches by Kharkiv.
this is a very long way of saying "too many people"
always if objectively non lobby-corrupt thought throught
if regulation is to much captured by lobby-corruption or ignore facts because of ideology thinking(:1) it can be very bad, then you can for example easily end up with what I like to call "red hearing regulation". A regulation which doesn't fix the problem at all but if you are naive looks like it might and prevent any further regulations from being done because it's already there. Or you can end up with monopoly-like companies cutting of access to markets for competition.
---
(:1) to be clear I mean the innocent interpretation of that phrase, not the one a lot of right wing propaganda in many countries is using regular where it often means "take this out of context potentially outright lying statements and treat them as obvious facts while claiming all other facts are ideologist driven fake news and then complain why no one want to have fact based discussions with you anymore"
As another commenter pointed out, the teenagers are already well aware of the world around them. But for the kids, the point stands.
Maybe it has something to do with the other adults' attitude? When I was a child, my parents were poor and I was a rather bright one. I distinctly remember adults around me viewing education as a ticket to a better life. Nowadays, it feels like this is not really the case. Maybe the children don't understand what is going on, but maybe they do understand what adults/teenagers around them feel?
Where I live, code requires that if you build a fence, it should not block the view and should be lower than 1.6/1.7m. So you cannot build a full fence for privacy or to block road noises.
Some neighbours wanted to build such a fence, because the road passing by is busy and noisy. So they build a "fake" pre-fence to code, next to the road, and 2 meters back, the first allowed distance for any construction, they build a "natural" 2.5 meter high "fence" of stacked wood to dampen the noise and have some privacy.
The town hall is furious, but cannot do anything, because nothing prevents you from stacking wood 2.5 meters high. The winters are harsh in the mountains, after all. And even the locals a few villages down the valley were impressed and laughing about it.
yes _parents_, but we are speaking about state actions (which could require companies to give parents tools to help them handle this this (:1))
and that affects parents, and teachers, and what is tough, and how society in general treats such things, and which things get which age rating etc. We need to convince society that this dopamine cycles are similar bad as drugs, only forcing it down their throat is not going to end well
and I was also focusing a lot in the comment on from which angle states approach that actions
> targeted online advertising
while that is a problem, it isn't the core problem here
the core problem is dark patterns intentionally designed to make apps/sites maximally addictive
even if we didn't had any ads at all many apps(and co) would likely still do that, so that they can e.g. sell more micro transaction (like think 0.2ct per short watched, small enough to seem nothing but if you doom scroll for two+ hours every day adds up (~120$/€ a year). Heck even without micro transactions it still does make "statistics look good" some it probably still would be applied quite often.
(And by the time we're 45, the bar will have moved up to 50+)
like you know the station most teachers are exposed to as the problem can already have takes deep root before the child goes to school
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Learning how to be ‘bored’ is an important part of growing up, and any parent that is not teaching their children that lesson is failing their children.
If the kids won’t learn anyways, we might as well give them their dopamine and depression machines so they can really double down on not learning?
Calling schools prisons?
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Learning isn’t always fun and it’s unfortunate that, as a child, you were asked to do things that weren’t 100% the most fun thing you could be doing at any given time, but it turns out playing video games all day has no value. It turns out, simply being a student with some anecdata gives one no insight into actual teaching.
This just reads as angsty teenage frustration.
Firstly, I use TikTok myself so this isn't coming from a place of "old man yells at clouds", but why does it have to be smartphones and addictive algorithms? There's a practically unlimited number of ways to cope, they can daydream about their interests, draw and sketch things, read, interact with others, at least that's what we used to do, but just about anything that doesn't involve algorithmic content is practically harmless in comparison.
When overused, streams of dopamine such as TikTok can completely drain your desire to do anything creative, productive, to learn things, to experiment, to be curious, to do anything that delivers less than immediate, consistent reward (even video games can be low-reward in comparison).
I've been on both sides of this. I've gone years without engaging with these algorithms at all while harnessing my creative energy, and I've gotten stuck in the depths of these algorithms for weeks at a time.
It's questionable whether they're going to be able to get out of it, much like kids who start doing drugs in their tween years. It may be a coping mechanism, but in kids and teenagers it's probably about as healthy as daily cannabis consumption.
> I wouldn't trust their reporting though
If you don't trust the quality of reporting from the New York Times, who do you trust? Washington Post? Chicago Tribune? LA Times? SF Chronicle?World War I was long and devastating but there would be an end to it; wars don't continue forever by default. WWII was potentially cataclysmic but we were fighting coherently with a unified front, throwing everything we had towards beating it. You could buy war bonds, grow a victory garden, ration your use of gasoline/rubber/steel; do your part and we'll get through this.
The modern issues like climate change are global, imminent, and increasingly present, and there's no contemporary feeling of solidarity and effort against them. We've been told annually that the window to save ourselves is closing rapidly, and yet carbon emissions are still increasing. That's right, they're not going down too slowly, they're still going up.
Pick another modern issue, like education (which is arguably a root solution to these other issues). It's getting worse, so are we trying like hell to improve it? Teachers are trying but can't seem to move the needle. And the US is about to dismantle its national Department of Education to improve "efficiency".
I've looked at the situation and despite a desire for optimism, I have to be realistic. All efforts against the current slate of problems are off by an order of magnitude. Please, tell me a story, any story at all, for how this gets better within our lifetimes, without science fantasy like colonizing Mars or limitless fusion power (as though either of those things would help anyway).
Today we are facing a sort of nebulous destabilization of social institutions and norms that seems to be related to digital computing and communication technologies but we can't nail down what particular aspects cause the problem or how it manifests. We are not sure if any particular problem is related to The Problem or not. Some people don't believe that The Problem exists at all. We have no idea what the consequences could be if The Problem is not addressed, nor do we have a good way to tell if it's currently getting worse, barring some kind of unexpected catastrophe like a bunch of high-ranking government officials accidentally inviting a journalist to an illegal chat room where they are planning air strikes.
Perhaps none of this means that The Problem is worse than anything we have faced before, or even as bad. But humans have always gotten through our problems by turning our intellect onto them, and it frightens us when our best weapon doesn't seem to be working.
What is the Internet doing to society? That's the trillion-dollar question.
Apply this to middle/high school students and you're going to get a lot of students being annoyed since they're being challenged, are feeling stupid, and don't know how to deal with that feeling of being stupid; especially given that many of them don't see the point in attending school since they feel like it isn't helping them.
There will be some that will engage, but those aren't the students we're concerned about here.
> some examples would be great.
Our modern world has resulted in many things being extremely complex. Many things these days require many steps to create and with each part of the process being dependent upon the previous one. Take something as simple as creating a nail. You got to mine the iron, gather the carbon. You got to transport the iron from the mine, to a ship, that travels across the world to go get processed and turned into iron, then transported again to get processed into steel, that steel is then sold to be reheated and reformed into the nail, which is then shipped across the world into a warehouse to your local home depot. There's so many steps missing from that, with like acquiring the tools to mine the materials, to even your car and the fact you need to repeat the whole process for all that including the hammer you will use to hit the nail.Suppose you have a process with many steps and each step has an error rate of 0.1% (99.9% success rate). If your process has 10 steps, your success rate is only 99%, but if 100 steps it is 90%, 200 it is 81.9%, and 500 steps and it is only 60%. You can probably see with the above that things are going to take thousands of steps.
Most of this operates pretty well and there is redundancy built in. But there's a reason the whole world shuts down when a ship gets stuck in a canal. While most things aren't as critical of a choke point, but things aren't running on such efficiency that it can handle hard disruptions. Just see how quickly things fell apart in the pandemic.
> I want to believe it is pragmatic
I'm not sure what is pragmatic about it. That you can do nothing? You can't make things better? I'm not trying to say to go change the world for everyone and be someone they write about in history books. I'm saying focus on your local world, the things around you. You can definitely change that. I'm trying to say that by changing that that it does make a difference at the larger scale. The butterfly effect is a very real thing and it isn't all just doom and gloom.One "trick" I try as a writer of sometimes-misunderstood comms is to avoid making statements about a person I am responding to. Instead of "you," I may sub in "someone" and I try to stick to events if possible.
Instead of "the best you can do is pull up an even from 2k years ago" to "an example from 2k years ago, surely we can find more recent events." (As a trite example). Note I moved away from isolating the other person and who they are to more broad language that let's us focus on the idea at hand, not the person who raised it.
</insomnia_thoughts>
I would say that my response was actually pretty chill. It could have been much less chill. ;-)
'Bbbut kids then cry and scream!' Well yeah, thats how you raised them overall, don't expect miracles suddenly, world doesn't revolve around you and certainly kids don't.
Fyi our small kids (3 and 5) can handle that 'boredom' of day-long travel without any device just fine. But its due to them being raised without screens, and their parents not being constantly glued to same thing. So they just watch the country go by, go through a book or two, draw with pencil on paper (yes, its still a thing), we talk to them and entertain them and so on.
A significant confounding factor is the lack of awareness of the productive forces. The average suburban school kid has relatively little idea of how the world works and what workers actually do, and why, in part due to a culture of corporate secrecy.
"No phones in school" can be a stopgap but really produces a dead end arms-race situation, even if it worked for a time. The only solution is to make school genuinely interesting and relevant. Until institutionalized education is no longer interesting and relevant on the face of it.
All these things now end in arrest or investigation or at the least a Karen stirring up shit, unless you are real rural. I weep for today's kids. You can do almost nothing nowadays what I did as a kid unless your parents are rich enough to not work and accompany you. The parents want to let their boredom drive them to discover the world, but they usually can't. Instead they're locked in with a tablet where a Karen can't snitch on them for being a kid.
And it's a hacker news standby. Any discussion of schools will have at least one commenter calling them prisons.
Are you kidding me? That’s your takeaway? My man, I wanted to learn. Most kids want to learn. The issue, which I brought up in various forms, is that the teachers were overworked, the schools underfunded (or administratively mismanaged), and that many teachers were uninterested in trying to teach their classes. I don’t want kids to rot on tik tok, I want schools that are effectively able to teach students. My reference to prisons was very exaggerated no doubt, but a reference nonetheless to the very real phenomenon of a highly securitized and policed model of schooling I experienced while in attendance. An elementary school I attended in downtown Memphis had police doing random bag checks on entry, and most of the places I went were surrounded by walls and fences, had small windows, etc that were quite reminiscent of a prison. This is a known phenomenon, not my personal invention.
>If the kids won’t learn anyways, we might as well give them their dopamine and depression machines so they can really double down on not learning?
Look I understand why you read me this way, but no. I don’t want kids to have phones in schools. My issue is that people act like phones are the issue here, when the phones’ rampant use and abuse is just one tiny symptom of a broken education system that necessitates coping mechanisms by the students. Taking the phones without any will to actually repair this situation is a bandaid on a gunshot.
Ma'am, may I go to the bathroom?
>Sorry, this is ridiculous.
Classy.
>Learning isn’t always fun and it’s unfortunate that, as a child, you were asked to do things that weren’t 100% the most fun thing you could be doing at any given time
Parent poster was complaining about the school system being unfit for the purpose of teaching, the "100% fun" thing is in your imagination.
>but it turns out playing video games all day has no value.
Neither has the system of formalized education, if we were to judge purely by your reading comprehension.
On the other hand, at least half of everyone I know learned the language that we are currently conversing in from videogames.
The weed example is a good comparison though. I view kids smoking lots of weed as a failure of a system. Knowing some of them, we’re usually talking about shitty family situations on top of a shitty school they’re made to attend for a solid amount of their waking life. The school should take their pot, of course it should, but it’s a marker far down a road that shouldn’t have been started along to begin with. There’s an enormously complicated set of social reasons that those kids’ schools, and their families, are messed up, but it’s as though there’s no will to tackle these issues. It’s much easier to attack the simple things you can see, the smoking and the phone use, with bandaid solutions that ignore the underlying causes. I almost see it as a distraction from really fixing anything. That’s where my frustration comes from, I really have no problem with the banning of the phones itself.
Distrust all media deeply. Not because there's an organizational directive to say something in a certain way, but they staff themselves with people who want to say something in a certain way.
It's a bit hard to notice because Gioia is a polemicist trying to whip up a crowd, but what he brings up isn't actually complaints about kids using smartphones in the classroom. Rather they're about students being uninterested in the material (or less charitably, perhaps in the teacher's presentation of it), and then he implies very strongly that this must be due to smartphones but doesn't try to argue that case. Instead he gets mad at people who point out that correlation is not causation, claims they're engaging in "sophistry and spin", that's he's "dumbfounded" anyone could possibly disagree with this amazing argument, then immediately goes off on a tangent about AI cheating (a form of sophistry).
Actually, at no point in this article is smartphone usage in the classroom ever brought up as an actual problem. The link is implied to be causal whenever children have any access to "tech" in general, anywhere at all.
Capitalism, industrialization, and urbanization had left many people behind. Communism and fascism arose as responses to that, along with more moderate ideologies that ended up joining forces with capitalism. Today we have globalization and a different flavor of capitalism, with a new set of ideologies offering solutions to those who were left behind.
In the US it's ~10% of the population. Completely doable, especially since the participation rate in the economy is still lower than at any point in the last 50 years (minus covid). If that seems to hard I guess we can increase class sizes by 100% and have 2 on 1 education.
No. Title I urban school in the state’s third largest city.
> There will be some that engage….
First, if I were being nitpicky, i’d say that this assumes that it’s the student’s responsibility to take the initiative to engage with content. Rather, that’s just what the job of a high school teacher is… to lead them to a point, often sneakily, where they are engaging.
All that said, people are rather overlooking the “bad news” paragraph I included. Getting kids to at least respond to you as an individual teacher on an individual level is easy. But it’s often actively sabotaged by the systems and processes that govern day-to-day crap that happens in a public school. Sad.
flipped classrooms seem to imply work ahead of time though? But here we'd show up hands in our pockets and start working on the material on site
Did you build with wood?
This is a very American view. In Europe/China/Japan/USSR, you could do all those things, and you and your family could still die tomorrow in an aerial bombing or get rounded up by the Gestapo/Kempeitai/KGB and sent to a concentration camp/human experiment lab/gulag.
Any school teacher can tell you: a single kid that refuses to engage easily holds back an entire class. The only way to get really well educated kids is to separate kids that engage. But do that, and the parents won't stop screaming at you ...
In the US, it is maybe not completely wrong that a majority of college students want to be in school, but it is definitely wrong that a majority of the students in a given typical teacher's typical course want to be in that class (possibly unless it is a major-only course).
Anyway, thanks for the kind words. I’ve been pretty down about it recently because it seems like we’re just papering over deep structural and systemic problems, which just hurts our kids more than acknowledging the realities would.
What workers actually do is easy to find out. The problem is rather: for quite a lot of jobs, as a school kid, you'd rather come to the conclusion that if this is what life is about, you should rather commit suicide as soon as possible.
Similarly, understanding how the world works, gives you an insane hate for a lot of people (i.e. makes you a misanthropist). Beginning from politicians, ending with basically everybody (you get to understand that the (irrational and clearly not in their long-term self-interest) behaviour of many people around you causes perverse incentives for the markets).
Are these really the lessons that children should get?
Yes, I am very black-pilld.
Veggies prepared well is great. So is education. Most of public school is simply mass market soggy, saltless, microwave veggie plates.
But these kids are pretty well looked after, 24/7 parent available, high engagement parenting. The kids just find stuff in the real world to do. They get 30 minutes of "group" screen time a day, as in the family sits down together and watches something.
I have the same feeling when I see adults on their phones to be honest, and I'm quite introverted. Just feels like a sterile community to be in.
Then you've suddenly a generation of students that don't know their heads from their asses out in the streets and useless to anyone.
This might have not been too terrible a century ago, but the day is coming when a warm body is effectively useless. Yeah, you can teach anyone to fry burgers, but we don't need that many of those and nobody wants to babysit a bunch of incredibly unreliable and stupid adults when they can get a far less troublesome burger cooking machine instead.
If all you have is trees though you can build a permanent treated wood foundation.
Perhaps the problem is in part kids aren't economically 'exploited' enough so they have basically nill solidifying the utility of their schooling.
A student recently asked me if I was ever bored. I said no. They had a hard time believing me. I pointed out that the world is endlessly interesting if you just look at it. This table— who made it? Why was it made this way? What is it made from? How was THAT made? And so on. Even dirt is fascinating. I remember biology teacher demonstrating with a microscope that a small sample of soil contains countless microbes…
I hope that people will eventually grow out of the fascination with online/social media, but I am not optimistic. But if they do, come join the rest of the folks who are having fun in the real world.
Modern mobiles should be banned from schools completely. Every kid who left school >15 years ago did fine without scrolling all day long.
You think not having ten year olds wandering the halls at will makes an elementary school “like prison”? Really?
> Parent poster was complaining about the school system being unfit for the purpose of teaching, the "100% fun" thing is in your imagination.
The entire conversation spawned from a comment about how phones should be banned, and the poster I replied to talking about how it’s unfair to take them away from students, for “coping” or as a source of “escape”.
Would you like to re-discuss reading comprehension as an artifact of reading an entire comment chain to gain context before snarkily responding to only the last thing that was said, or are you good?
Maybe that video game didn’t do you quite as much service as you’d like to pretend.
This isn’t a “schools are bad” thing - this is a fundamental attack on young people by meta, Google, TikTok and the rest. Pretending that if your Memphis school just let kids bring guns or pot to school you’d have not needed your phone (there’s a reason they were searching bags, after all) is bizarre.
[
A frustrated teacher recently took to social media with a desperate warning:
You guys don’t know what’s going on in education right now. That’s fine—how could you know unless you were working in it? But I think that you need to know….
First of all the kids have no ability to be bored whatsoever. They live on their phones. And they’re just fed a constant stream of dopamine from the minute their eyes wake up in the morning until they go to sleep at night.
Because they are in a constant state of dopamine withdrawal at school, they behave like addicts. They’re super emotional. The smallest things set them off.
When you are standing in front of them trying to teach, they’re vacant. They have no ability to tune in….
They’re not there.
And they have a level of apathy that I’ve never seen before in my whole career. Punishments don’t work because they don’t care about them. They don’t care about grades. They don’t care about college.
They just care about the next fix—because that’s how addicts operate. They have no long term plan, just short term needs.
They can’t get back to their phones fast enough.
How bad is it for educators right now?
Check out this commentary from one experienced teacher, who finds more engaged students in prison than a college classroom.
This comes from Corey McCall, a member of The Honest Broker community who recently posted this comment:
I saw this decline in both reading ability and interest occur firsthand between 2006 and 2021….I had experience teaching undergrads who hadn't comprehended the material before, but hadn't faced the challenge of students who could read it but who simply didn't care….
Since 2021 I've been teaching part-time in prison, and incarcerated students really want to learn. They love to read and think along with authors such as Plato, Descartes, and Simone de Beauvoir. I am teaching Intro to Theater this semester (the story of how this happened is interesting, but is irrelevant here) and students have been poring over Oedipus the King and asking why this amazing play isn't performed more regularly alongside plays like Hamilton and The Lion King.
I believe that there is hope for the humanities and perhaps for culture more generally, but it will be found in unusual places.
I’ve made a similar claim in this article—where I look outside of college for a rebirth of the humanities. It would be great if it happened in classrooms, too, but I fear that they are now the epicenter of the zombie wars.
Alas, I fear the number of zombie students is still growing—and at an accelerated pace.
Jonathan Haidt, who has taken the lead in exposing this crisis—and thus gets attacked fiercely by zombie apologists—shares horrifying trendlines from Monitoring the Future.
This group at the University of Michigan has studied student behavior since 1975. But what’s happening now is unprecedented.
Students are literally finding it too hard to think. So they can’t learn new things.
Below are more ugly numbers from another in-depth study—which looks at how children spend their day. It reveals that children under the age of two are already spending more than an hour per day on screens.
YouTube usage for this group has more than doubled in just four years.
Poor and marginalized communities are hurt the most. As your income drops, your children’s screen time more than doubles.
In other words, these children are getting turned into screen addicts long before they enter the school system.
This is why teachers are speaking out. They see the fallout every day in their classrooms.
I’m dumbfounded when I hear ‘experts’ claim that phones are not the problem. Like tobacco companies—whose hired experts long denied the connection between smoking and cancer—they say that “correlation does not prove causation.”
But that’s just sophistry and spin.
Parents, for example, have no doubts about the danger—because they see it happening right before their eyes.
But let’s give tech companies some credit. They have improved one skill among current students—cheating, which has now reached epic proportions.
The situation is so extreme that more than 40% of students were caught cheating recently—and it happened in an ethics class!
The professor caught them in a simple way. He simply uploaded a copy of his final exam on to the web, but with wrong answers.
“Most of these answers were not just wrong, but obviously wrong to anyone who had paid attention in class,” he adds. But “40 out of 96 students looked at and used the planted final for at least a critical mass of questions.”
Another teacher shares a similar lament: “I used to teach students. Now I catch ChatGPT cheats.”
I once believed my students and I were in this together, engaged in a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated over the past few semesters.
Tech companies know exactly what they’re doing.
Microsoft researchers recently published a study showing that excessive use of new tech leads to a “deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved.”
Theses innovations “deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared.”
Facebook did similar research, with similarly frightening results—and they worked hard to bury the results. We weren’t supposed to see the charts below. But a brave whistleblower took photos and leaked them to the Wall Street Journal.
[
Meanwhile, an internal study at OpenAI shows that the two most commons uses of AI by students are (1) writing papers and (2) avoiding reading assignments. Other popular uses are answering exam questions and solving math problems.
None of this is a secret—the dysfunctional impact of new tech on students has been documented by study after study. Youngsters are under assault by tech leaders.
That’s how they meet their profit targets.
I only have one positive angle on this.
People are now aware. The blinders have been lifted from the public’s eyes.
Big tech has destroyed its credibility—and all the billionaires in Silicon Valley can’t restore it. They can buy lobbyists and co-opt “experts” with their cash. But the evil they are doing is now apparent to all unbiased observers.
Maybe they can stall change in Washington, D.C. by controlling politicians—at least for the time being. But they can’t stop the backlash that’s rising at a grass roots level.
That’s why the response to zombie culture is happening away from the limelight—in homes, schools, city council meetings, town hall gatherings, and other places where parents, teachers, and concerned individuals gather.
But it would be wise for our political leaders to take notice, and give their support. Even better, I’d like to see the leading tech companies admit that there’s a huge problem here, and they must fix it—because they caused it in the first place.
Do you think that’s too much to hope for? Do you doubt that the CEOs of Apple, Meta, Alphabet, X, and other tech empires will help us avert the coming crisis?
They might not have any other option. Their own management teams and employees are also parents, and just might rebel.
There must be thousands of people working at these tech behemoths—many in positions of great responsibility—who are horrified by what their own companies are doing. They need to speak up, and lead by example.
And I’m convinced many of them will.
Yes, the palace guards are more powerful than the emperor. So we have legitimate reasons to hope that Silicon Valley itself might someday heal itself—and thus help heal the victims of their overreaching.
In the meantime, we should continue to push at the local levels. We need to find programs and initiatives that work, and share them. We need to raise awareness. And we need to do what we can to protect those most at risk.
Others will join us in time.
And let me make one final plea to those working inside these tech empires. Raise your voices, start a petition, sign an open letter, speak out in private and public. Push back!
There are others like you who are just waiting from someone brave enough to take the lead. That person could be you.
No posts
Key things from the article blamed on phones/the internet/entertainment:
- Schoolteacher says "they don't care about grades, they don't care about college"
- College teacher says, "I am teaching Intro to Theatre and prisoners care more"
- Cheating in college.
All this has a simpler and much more direct explanation: college doesn't motivate students anymore, and especially not humanities courses. If college doesn't matter then high school grades matter much less, what professors teach in class matters much less, and all this is totally as expected because universities have been trashing their reputations very publicly for a very long time now. Roll back to the pre-smartphone era and it was taken for granted that any degree at all would grant you upward mobility into the world of easy-breezy office jobs. Why not study Plato for a few years, given that expectation? Roll forward to today's world and even teenagers got the message that this was a lie, that many degrees are nearly worthless, that the debt costs are huge and that if they're a straight white male the university staff will at best hate them for how they were born, and at worst try to make life deliberately hard for them.
The fact that most universities aren't even trying to stop LLM based cheating is the final nail in the coffin. Why tune in when you can get a computer to write your assignments for you, the professors won't notice and you'll get good grades without any effort.
This blasé attitude deeply offends the generation for whom university attendance was a quasi-sacred act, hence Gioia's astonishment that 40% of students would cheat in an ethics class. For younger generations they see it as a purely transactional interaction, in which they are forced to pay lots of money to listen to someone waffle about ethics despite having no particular claim to being an ethical person, in return for the ability to maybe get a job better than barista.
The fix for all this isn't to wage war on smartphones, although that is what the educational establishment will do. It's to recognize that schools have drifted too far from what kids actually need (especially boys), and to rethink the way they work to reflect a world where college degrees are devalued.
I made an assumption based on class size. The person I was replying too stated 180-200 students. So the assumption was that they were meaning a lecture hall of 180-200 students, which is typical for a college course. That is not typical for a high school course, in which case, I'm going to go out on a limb again and say that it's 180-200 students over 5-6 ~30 student periods.
> They spend billions designing addictive apps that destroy attention spans
Yes that’s precisely what they do, and they suck. It’s also not the first time someone’s thought to capitalize on the addictive tendencies of adolescents. Why is this one the one that’s ruining schools?
See my position is that phones haven’t had an outsized influence on the stagnation of our (US) educational outcomes. I think that other, deeper, system-wide problems are at fault. Phones’ presence in schools, the fact that they haven’t already been banned widely by a crowd of concerned parents, is itself evidence of the issues I’m talking about. Many parents don’t have the time to worry about such things. Many others are worried for their kids’ safety due to overwhelming reporting of a somewhat real threat in school shootings and violence, and want to make sure they can contact them. Addressing the phone issue would involve addressing parents directly, or those mechanisms influencing their behavior. Again, though, why the hell are we so fixated on the phones? Is this really the big issue with schools? If we’re going to have energy directed towards reforming schools, can’t we maybe direct it towards something more useful and impactful than banning the phones? That’s my problem.
No, I learned English at school from a teacher. Thus, I was a relative straggler in language learning, in comparison with those of my peers who could afford PCs able to run GTA3.
For your benefit, I re-read the whole thread just now and I still find your reasoning faulty and your premise, frankly, cruel.
Your only response to salient points such as, I quote, "incompetent education system", "The customers are captive", "The incentives could hardly be more misaligned" was, basically, "boo fucking hoo".
I'll leave you to ponder why your putative ten-year olds would even have anything to "cope" with or "escape" from. Maybe they're trying to cope with the traumatic realization that the world they've been born into is hell-bent on turning them into you.
Pretending that this is what the parent poster is saying is absurd. They made an effort to express a nuanced and humane view in an exceedingly clear manner. They are also doing a great job at handling this interaction with you in an open-minded and non-confrontational way.
>this is a fundamental attack on young people by meta, Google, TikTok and the rest
I agree with that. But, funny thing, I thought these companies consisted of human beings who had excelled at their formal educations?
> I’m dumbfounded when I hear ‘experts’ claim that phones are not the problem. Like tobacco companies—whose hired experts long denied the connection between smoking and cancer—they say that “correlation does not prove causation.”
> But that’s just sophistry and spin.
Ah, you see, the article man, a man who clearly possesses no biases whatsoever, has simply declared it to be sophistry and spin from these so-called “experts,” therefore indeed it must be.
In all seriousness, the article shows that students are doing worse inside and outside of schools, increasingly since 2010 or so, and it shows that phone use has risen over roughly the same period. I’m happy to attribute some of the issue to phones, especially the students’ complaints of focus issues, but this period also encapsulates fucking covid 19, which is where the charts show the biggest rise in complaints. Why would I blindly assume the phones are the biggest causative factor here without the author providing an argument for it? Ah but that’s just “sophistry and spin” I’m sure. Jesus.
There’s other issues in this article too that a more honest author would have addressed. Why might prison students be more willing to learn? I tried to track this comment down, but it’s on one of his own articles (very unbiased stuff) and is thus subscribe(pay?)-walled. Because of that, I’m left to assume these are adult prisoners taking advantage of a voluntary program in their prison. Gee why might an adult who wants to go to school, whose alternative is prison, be more interested than a kid who doesn’t want to be there? Really strains the mind that one.
>Pretending that if your Memphis school just let kids bring guns or pot to school you’d have not needed your phone (there’s a reason they were searching bags, after all) is bizarre.
I didn’t have a phone in elementary school, my cope was fantasy novels. The reason was indeed largely to keep knives and drugs out. See, perhaps the fact that some of the kids were flirting with gang violence before age 10, and that others were bringing weapons to school to defend themselves against said gangs, indicates problems more significant than TikTok in school.
> The article lays out why the students are “coping”. It’s not because teaching them geometry is “broken” - it’s because learning it is hard and there’s no dopa hit when you memorize sohcahtoa. Watching TikTok is easy, and there is a dopa hit every time.
The article doesn’t even try to show that the learning outcomes are related to phones, much less that the reason for any mental distress of students is because “learning is hard.” Do the kids of billionaires with private tutors have a similarly negative experience with the process of learning? No I’m not delusional, we can’t give everyone private tutors. I am delusional enough, however, to think that a series of drastic reforms and restructurings could bring the student to teacher ratio more in line with that of the more successful developed nations.
As a parent now, I must say I don't understand what you want parents to do. I want the best for my 3 daughters ... and public school isn't the best (and private school, while far from free, is certainly not as expensive as I keep reading. Tuition per year is in the thousands (close to 10000$), but not 50000. And if I chose the catholic school, which btw is a school with actually a better reputation than their current private school, it would be less than 2000$ (plus a third kid doesn't pay at all). One kid has a sponsorship in the private school, and doesn't pay.
When we went to check out the public school, the teacher didn't know where France was, and the 6th year math teacher didn't know what differentiation was. There were no advanced classes or study sessions outside of regular hours (they might refer you to a program that was organized by the state university ... a 45 minute drive away). There were some sport clubs, but nothing compared to either the private school or the catholic school we checked out (there the private school was far superior, you can even go horseback riding, but the catholic school still had 10 sports available, and another 10 activities)
It's close to 2000$ per month to have 3 kids in private school ... and me and my wife pay that because, well, in my opinion there's no alternative.
I need to go take a shower and get ready for work, so I’m going to stop ranting, but the basic solution is to recognize that one size does not fit all. The career tech-normie hs-gifted division we operate with is too broad-brushed. The school I’ve been at has a shit ton of profound mental health problems among students. Poverty is real but it’s not as grinding as our rival school down the street (the “super ghetto” school I was told), nor is life-threatening violence necessarily a daily companion for our kids as for theirs. Yet we are both Title I urban schools.
It’s complicated, man.
https://www.historytools.org/school/why-do-schools-look-like...
>During the 19th century Industrial Revolution, reformers explicitly modeled public schools after factories to habituate youth to regimented workplace environments.
>Cell-like classrooms with regimented rows of desks
>Rigid schedules and rules to control movement
>Obedience to authority figures
>Conformity and standardization
>In the 20th century, disciplinary issues led architects to also incorporate prison elements
>Enclosing perimeter fences up to 10 feet high
>Locked or monitored gates limiting entrance/exit
>Surveillance cameras blanketing hallways and grounds
>Metal detectors
>Mesh covered windows preventing exit attempts
>Sparse and durable interior materials resistant to damage
>Currently over 17% of schools possess 10 or more of these. Their prevalence continues rising yearly.
The article goes on but this should hopefully be illustrative of my point.
I don’t blame parents for making individual decisions for their own children. I blame us as a wider society for our willingness to throw kids away who have themselves done nothing but have them misfortune of being born into shitty situations.
I hear these experiences from many places. I know someone who started a buddy system from the sports coaches in his place. They made an on campus chill out room where kids can relax with coaches nearby in the next room. They are confidants and they keep them away from their homes which are sometimes terrible places.
They also get these kids a sports team so they have mates who are in the same situation.
Finally they got some local shops to sponsor it because the idea is that they and the police have less problems with the kids being of the street.
It’s not a 100% cure, but it does seem to take away the biggest strains on the system.