4 ms·

“it’s obvious to anyone” is not a substitution for proof and that statement makes it obvious that you’re just speaking from intuition. Screens are not inherent

“it’s obvious to anyone” is not a substitution for proof and that statement makes it obvious that you’re just speaking from intuition. Screens are not inherently…anything.

elevaet 5y ago
Yes, screens aren't inherently anything, but I think they're using "screens" as shorthand for the phone/social media/apps ecosystem that does have addictive qualities and is fairly well studied. Tons of good references in here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240116/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240116/ OTOH I think it's fair to say that something like an e-reader or a dumb watch has low-addictive qualities, and have screens.
- baash05 5y ago
  My kids e-reader is super addictive. My kids can spend hours and hours glued to it. And god help me I'm so over the moon happy. Both my kids have old school Casio's, and kindle e-readers. Totally agree with ya.
  - elevaet 5y ago
    Yeah if that's an addiction, it's the best kind.
trgn 5y ago
I find that a copout answer. Screens are inherently distracting. They literally flash and flicker. The devices that those screens are attached too have buttons and little jiggery bits. There's a ton of distracting software on those devices, browsers, games. The supposed learning software is all about gamification and slidey swoopy menus and other completely distracting BS. So yes, "screens" as a pars pro toto for digital learning is inherently distracting. It's only when you reduce it so far as to be meaningless, - "a screen is just some LED-lights organized in a square, how's that different from paper," - that you can say they're not.
aufhebung 5y ago
Where he speaks from intuition I speak from personal experience. Through my entire High School experience iPads and computers were more often used to play Clash Royale or Tetris in class than used for actual work.

“it’s obvious to anyone” is not a substitution for proof and that statement makes it obvious that you’re just speaking from intuition. Screens are not inherently…anything.

elevaet 5y ago

Yes, screens aren't inherently anything, but I think they're using "screens" as shorthand for the phone/social media/apps ecosystem that does have addictive qualities and is fairly well studied. Tons of good references in here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240116/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240116/ OTOH I think it's fair to say that something like an e-reader or a dumb watch has low-addictive qualities, and have screens.

baash05 5y ago
My kids e-reader is super addictive. My kids can spend hours and hours glued to it. And god help me I'm so over the moon happy. Both my kids have old school Casio's, and kindle e-readers. Totally agree with ya.
- elevaet 5y ago
  Yeah if that's an addiction, it's the best kind.

trgn 5y ago

I find that a copout answer. Screens are inherently distracting. They literally flash and flicker. The devices that those screens are attached too have buttons and little jiggery bits. There's a ton of distracting software on those devices, browsers, games. The supposed learning software is all about gamification and slidey swoopy menus and other completely distracting BS. So yes, "screens" as a pars pro toto for digital learning is inherently distracting. It's only when you reduce it so far as to be meaningless, - "a screen is just some LED-lights organized in a square, how's that different from paper," - that you can say they're not.

aufhebung 5y ago

Where he speaks from intuition I speak from personal experience. Through my entire High School experience iPads and computers were more often used to play Clash Royale or Tetris in class than used for actual work.