Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Disagree. A smartphone is a crutch. It's a reference that kids are trained to rely on. The second that that phone is taken away everything they used the phone for are instantly gone, and they panic when they have no ability to know pretty much anything in front of them. They rely on it just to walk around, not to learn from. It's a tool in the way your brain is a tool, not as a book is a tool. You take the brain away and you have a mindless drone that can't do anything for themselves.

---

What's the difference between a phone and a book in this situation? Do you remember the pictures and words you get from a book better than you do from a phone?

I use picture recognition quite a bit to fight weeds in my yard, identify trees and plants I see when I go for runs, and have used it to identify insects, as well. It's no different than referencing a book. I can't recall the name of everything I've ever looked up, but ones I've looked up 2-3 times I remember beyond that. Just as if I referenced a book.

The problem is not the media you're using. The problem is that students aren't focused on learning the material. We think just shoving a tablet in their face and walking away is sufficient for them to learn. What did y'all do when the teacher put on a video in class and then sat at their desk grading papers? I'm willing to bet you didn't learn anything. Same with doodling, passing notes, chatting up the girl in front of you, or sleeping while the teacher is lecturing.

My kids have to do homework online from time to time. When they do, they are forced to sit at a desk or table with no other devices or distractions and I check in on them periodically and check their work. A lot of times I like to ask them what they found interesting, what they learned, etc. to make sure they are recalling the information effectively.

Y'all can blame screens all you want, but the problem is not the media but the fact that we put 100% of the learning on the media.

---

There's actually a huge difference. Reading something and truly understanding it is significantly different than pointing at something and then having your phone tell you what it is. The latter takes literally no thought, and you also know that if you want to know what it is next time all you have to do is point your phone at it again. There's no reason to learn it, and since your brain doesnt need to take that extra step, it doesnt. Not without taking it a step further, which requires effort that is no longer necessary with reliance in technology to access information. You borrow information, you don't actually own it. You see the answer, but don't understand it. It's similar to inputting a calculus equation in your graphing calculator. It spits out the answer, but do you know what it took to get to that point, or what it actually means? Nope. Because there's no reason to actually learn it if your calculator will just tell you the end result. I learned calculus in high school the old fashioned way and was damned good at it because I was taught to learn it. Then I got to idiot-level calculus at a&m as a freshman and all they did was have you input it into the calculator. It spits out the answer, but you never truly comprehend any part of the process, or even what the answer actually means/represents. I never would've known how little I knew if I only took the technology-taught calculus if I hadn't gone through actually learning it beforehand where they did the right way. Take the calculator away from the kids in that class during the final and every single kid would have scored a 0. All that was taught is how to get to the answer with the least amount of energy expended as possible. Mindless. Think anyone learned a single thing in that class? Nope. That's how literally everything is taught now. Know the answer? Great. Know how you got to it? No reason.

Like anything else, humans, and all life, take the easiest path to finding the answer or solution to a problem. That's human nature. It's just like learning a skill to earn money vs someone just handing it to you without actually doing it for yourself. Or if something breaks, you're taught who to call, not how to do it yourself. If it requires no thought, then you don't learn it. You don't have to, so why bother with something that requires effort to get to the same end result? It breeds laziness and indifference. And often they don't even realize just how ignorant and dependent they are, since they end up at the same end point either way. But you ask them to explain the process? That's when you get blank faces, and hands reaching for their phone. Take away the phone and those blank faces turn to panic and helplessness, and potentially anger.

Also, as I am in medicine, I am constantly looking up drug doses and such and don't ever need to learn them. It's pretty much the same thing. But...I know what drugs to look up without needing that reference because I understand the disease and how to treat it. Of course, now with AI, I might not even have to know that much, so the next generation of doctors should be interesting to see play out.

If there's no reason to learn something, since you just look it up, then your brain pushes it into short term memory and it never is actually learned.

I know it all sounds like the same thing, but it's quite different in terms of how we learn and process information.

Why think when something does the thinking for you?


Raise your hand in class, ask a question. Teacher gives you the answer. Great!

Same question on the test, raise your hand, the teacher gives you the answer. Did you learn? Nope. Someone told you the answer and you never had to think about it along the way.

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Disagree. A smartphone is a crutch. It's a reference that kids are trained to rely on. The second that that phone is taken away everything they used the phone for are instantly gone, and they panic when they have no ability to know pretty much anything in front of them. They rely on it just to walk around, not to learn from. It's a tool in the way your brain is a tool, not as a book is a tool. You take the brain away and you have a mindless drone that can't do anything for themselves.

---

What's the difference between a phone and a book in this situation? Do you remember the pictures and words you get from a book better than you do from a phone?

I use picture recognition quite a bit to fight weeds in my yard, identify trees and plants I see when I go for runs, and have used it to identify insects, as well. It's no different than referencing a book. I can't recall the name of everything I've ever looked up, but ones I've looked up 2-3 times I remember beyond that. Just as if I referenced a book.

The problem is not the media you're using. The problem is that students aren't focused on learning the material. We think just shoving a tablet in their face and walking away is sufficient for them to learn. What did y'all do when the teacher put on a video in class and then sat at their desk grading papers? I'm willing to bet you didn't learn anything. Same with doodling, passing notes, chatting up the girl in front of you, or sleeping while the teacher is lecturing.

My kids have to do homework online from time to time. When they do, they are forced to sit at a desk or table with no other devices or distractions and I check in on them periodically and check their work. A lot of times I like to ask them what they found interesting, what they learned, etc. to make sure they are recalling the information effectively.

Y'all can blame screens all you want, but the problem is not the media but the fact that we put 100% of the learning on the media.

---

There's actually a huge difference. Reading something and truly understanding it is significantly different than pointing at something and then having your phone tell you what it is. The latter takes literally no thought, and you also know that if you want to know what it is next time all you have to do is point your phone at it again. There's no reason to learn it, and since your brain doesnt need to take that extra step, it doesnt. Not without taking it a step further, which requires effort that is no longer necessary with reliance in technology to access information. You borrow information, you don't actually own it. You see the answer, but don't understand it. It's similar to inputting a calculus equation in your graphing calculator. It spits out the answer, but do you know what it took to get to that point, or what it actually means? Nope. Because there's no reason to actually learn it if your calculator will just tell you the end result. I learned calculus in high school the old fashioned way and was damned good at it because I was taught to learn it. Then I got to idiot-level calculus at a&m as a freshman and all they did was have you input it into the calculator. It spits out the answer, but you never truly comprehend any part of the process, or even what the answer actually means/represents. I never would've known how little I knew if I only took the technology-taught calculus if I hadn't gone through actually learning it beforehand where they did the right way. Take the calculator away from the kids in that class during the final and every single kid would have scored a 0. All that was taught is how to get to the answer with the least amount of energy expended as possible. Mindless. Think anyone learned a single thing in that class? Nope. That's how literally everything is taught now. Know the answer? Great. Know how you got to it? No reason.

Like anything else, humans, and all life, take the easiest path to finding the answer or solution to a problem. That's human nature. It's just like learning a skill to earn money vs someone just handing it to you without actually doing it for yourself. Or if something breaks, you're taught who to call, not how to do it yourself. If it requires no thought, then you don't learn it. You don't have to, so why bother with something that requires effort to get to the same end result? It breeds laziness and indifference. And often they don't even realize just how ignorant and dependent they are, since they end up at the same end point either way. But you ask them to explain the process? That's when you get blank faces, and hands reaching for their phone. Take away the phone and those blank faces turn to panic and helplessness, and potentially anger.

Also, as I am in medicine, I am constantly looking up drug doses and such and don't ever need to learn them. It's pretty much the same thing. But...I know what drugs to look up without needing that reference because I understand the disease and how to treat it. Of course, now with AI, I might not even have to know that much, so the next generation of doctors should be interesting to see play out.

If there's no reason to learn something, since you just look it up, then your brain pushes it into short term memory and it never is actually learned.

I know it all sounds like the same thing, but it's quite different in terms of how we learn and process information.

---

Please describe exactly how this plays out in your mind, because in reality the only difference is that a phone will give me the information to read and reference immediately while a book requires me to thumb through pages until I match a picture with what I see. I still have to choose to read more in a book, or I can just look at the picture and the name and move on. If I want to reference it again later I can just look back in the book and find the name again and move on. A book doesn't require me to learn any more or less than I CHOOSE to, and I can make the exact same choice with a phone, tablet, laptop, etc.

Your point about medicine and understanding the disease is the same concept. You understand the disease because you CHOSE to read more and learn more. You could just as easily keep medical books on your shelf and reference them any time you need. Hell, we used to do that all the time with these things called encyclopedias. There is no difference with finding knowledge on a phone or tablet than a book. It's all about what you choose to do with the source of information.

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Disagree. A smartphone is a crutch. It's a reference that kids are trained to rely on. The second that that phone is taken away everything they used the phone for are instantly gone, and they panic when they have no ability to know pretty much anything in front of them. They rely on it just to walk around, not to learn from. It's a tool in the way your brain is a tool, not as a book is a tool. You take the brain away and you have a mindless drone that can't do anything for themselves.

---

What's the difference between a phone and a book in this situation? Do you remember the pictures and words you get from a book better than you do from a phone?

I use picture recognition quite a bit to fight weeds in my yard, identify trees and plants I see when I go for runs, and have used it to identify insects, as well. It's no different than referencing a book. I can't recall the name of everything I've ever looked up, but ones I've looked up 2-3 times I remember beyond that. Just as if I referenced a book.

The problem is not the media you're using. The problem is that students aren't focused on learning the material. We think just shoving a tablet in their face and walking away is sufficient for them to learn. What did y'all do when the teacher put on a video in class and then sat at their desk grading papers? I'm willing to bet you didn't learn anything. Same with doodling, passing notes, chatting up the girl in front of you, or sleeping while the teacher is lecturing.

My kids have to do homework online from time to time. When they do, they are forced to sit at a desk or table with no other devices or distractions and I check in on them periodically and check their work. A lot of times I like to ask them what they found interesting, what they learned, etc. to make sure they are recalling the information effectively.

Y'all can blame screens all you want, but the problem is not the media but the fact that we put 100% of the learning on the media.

---

There's actually a huge difference. Reading something and truly understanding it is significantly different than pointing at something and then having your phone tell you what it is. The latter takes literally no thought, and you also know that if you want to know what it is next time all you have to do is point your phone at it again. There's no reason to learn it, and since your brain doesnt need to take that extra step, it doesnt. Not without taking it a step further, which requires effort that is no longer necessary with reliance in technology to access information. You borrow information, you don't actually own it. You see the answer, but don't understand it. It's similar to inputting a calculus equation in your graphing calculator. It spits out the answer, but do you know what it took to get to that point, or what it actually means? Nope. Because there's no reason to actually learn it if your calculator will just tell you the end result. I learned calculus in high school the old fashioned way and was damned good at it because I was taught to learn it. Then I got to idiot-level calculus at a&m as a freshman and all they did was have you input it into the calculator. It spits out the answer, but you never truly comprehend any part of the process, or even what the answer actually means/represents. I never would've known how little I knew if I only took the technology-taught calculus if I hadn't gone through actually learning it beforehand where they did the right way. Take the calculator away from the kids in that class during the final and every single kid would have scored a 0. All that was taught is how to get to the answer with the least amount of energy expended as possible. Mindless. Think anyone learned a single thing in that class? Nope. That's how literally everything is taught now. Know the answer? Great. Know how you got to it? No reason.

Like anything else, humans, and all life, take the easiest path to finding the answer or solution to a problem. That's human nature. It's just like learning a skill to earn money vs someone just handing it to you without actually doing it for yourself. Or if something breaks, you're taught who to call, not how to do it yourself. If it requires no thought, then you don't learn it. You don't have to, so why bother with something that requires effort to get to the same end result? It breeds laziness and indifference. And often they don't even realize just how ignorant and dependent they are, since they end up at the same end point either way. But you ask them to explain the process? That's when you get blank faces, and hands reaching for their phone. Take away the phone and those blank faces turn to panic and helplessness, and potentially anger.

Also, as I am in medicine, I am constantly looking up drug doses and such and don't ever need to learn them. It's pretty much the same thing. But...I know what drugs to look up without needing that reference because I understand the disease and how to treat it. Of course, now with AI, I might not even have to know that much, so the next generation of doctors should be interesting to see play out.

If there's no reason to learn something, since you just look it up, then your brain pushes it into short term memory and it never is actually learned.

I know it all sounds like the same thing, but it's quite different in terms of how we learn and process information.

---

Please describe exactly how this plays out in your mind, because in reality the only difference is that a phone will give me the information to read and reference immediately while a book requires me to thumb through pages until I match a picture with what I see. I still have to choose to read more in a book, or I can just look at the picture and the name and move on. If I want to reference it again later I can just look back in the book and find the name again and move on. A book doesn't require me to learn any more or less than I CHOOSE to, and I can make the exact same choice with a phone, tablet, laptop, etc.

---

You speak as someone who was taught to learn, or I assume so. Telling someone the answer doesnt teach them anything, and definitely not to truly comprehend. Kids are supposed to be learning HOW to learn, not just given the answer. All steps between the question and the answer are now skipped as they are no longer necessary.

I've worked with doctors who relied completely on external resources. After every appointment they go and look up what to do next, step by step. And then the diagnosis is spit out, along with treatment. Literally zero thought or understanding required. And other doctors never open a book except for rare strange cases. The former understands literally nothing about what they're doing, because they never learned. The latter has learned over time through experience. That said, at the end of the day, the best learners and doers are those who take an approach in the middle. I don't want someone who knows where to look for everything, but can't do anything without those resources.

Truly understanding something takes direct experience and effort, not just the ability to constantly look up things they don't know, especially since the things they don't know aren't ever learned because they don't ever have to. You don't learn that way. All you know is that you open a book to find every answer. It's a crutch. You can't function without it. Take it away and see just how much they actually understand of the material.

If you don't have to understand something to get the answer then why would you bother...? Technology and AI takes that whole issue to a whole other level of uselessness and ignorance, even while being inundated with unlimited information are your fingertips. Requiring your phone to do all your thinking leaves you as nothing more than a shell to regurgitate the answer.

Quote:

---

Please describe exactly how this plays out in your mind, because in reality the only difference is that a phone will give me the information to read and reference immediately while a book requires me to thumb through pages until I match a picture with what I see.

---

Like everything else in life, if you have to work for it, you appreciate it. If you have to work for the answer, you will better remember it and many times you learn more along the way.

Dumb lazy American kids.

No wonder we need H1Bs.

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Disagree. A smartphone is a crutch. It's a reference that kids are trained to rely on. The second that that phone is taken away everything they used the phone for are instantly gone, and they panic when they have no ability to know pretty much anything in front of them. They rely on it just to walk around, not to learn from. It's a tool in the way your brain is a tool, not as a book is a tool. You take the brain away and you have a mindless drone that can't do anything for themselves.

---

What's the difference between a phone and a book in this situation? Do you remember the pictures and words you get from a book better than you do from a phone?

I use picture recognition quite a bit to fight weeds in my yard, identify trees and plants I see when I go for runs, and have used it to identify insects, as well. It's no different than referencing a book. I can't recall the name of everything I've ever looked up, but ones I've looked up 2-3 times I remember beyond that. Just as if I referenced a book.

The problem is not the media you're using. The problem is that students aren't focused on learning the material. We think just shoving a tablet in their face and walking away is sufficient for them to learn. What did y'all do when the teacher put on a video in class and then sat at their desk grading papers? I'm willing to bet you didn't learn anything. Same with doodling, passing notes, chatting up the girl in front of you, or sleeping while the teacher is lecturing.

My kids have to do homework online from time to time. When they do, they are forced to sit at a desk or table with no other devices or distractions and I check in on them periodically and check their work. A lot of times I like to ask them what they found interesting, what they learned, etc. to make sure they are recalling the information effectively.

Y'all can blame screens all you want, but the problem is not the media but the fact that we put 100% of the learning on the media.

---

One thing that helps retain information is to both listen AND take notes. Sit in the front row so there are fewer distractions.

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

Please describe exactly how this plays out in your mind, because in reality the only difference is that a phone will give me the information to read and reference immediately while a book requires me to thumb through pages until I match a picture with what I see.

---

Like everything else in life, if you have to work for it, you appreciate it. If you have to work for the answer, you will better remember it and many times you learn more along the way.

---

But you don't have to work for knowledge you find in a book any more than you do researching something on the internet.

I work in cybersecurity. Information in my field changes so incredibly fast that they don't print books for anything except basic introductory concepts. I get alerted of a brand new attack at 4 a.m and I have to be a subject matter expert on it by the time everyone else starts getting to work that morning. I guarantee in two weeks time I've researched and read more on my 'screens' than kids will read in an entire semester.

It's not the medium. It's that we have used the medium as an excuse to stop being educators. Adults are the problem. We shove a tablet in their face and then we go sit at our desk and check our own phones while they 'learn'. It's no different than when teachers put on a VHS in class and graded papers while the VHS did the teaching. We didn't learn **** from the movie because we were goofing off.

Start using a tablet as a tool to enhance your teaching instead of supplementing your teaching and see how quickly kids start learning new concepts.

Agreed. A lot of the learning my kids do on technology has worksheets paired with them that requires them to take notes or write summaries of what they learned. One program we used had a column to the side for notes.

If you really want to understand the material, you need to study it so well that you can correctly explain it to others. This is especially good for Math and Physics. If you can correctly explain the concept in good detail to others, you are much more likely to remember it. At that point, studying for tests is trivial. Also, solving problems should be by understanding, not by applying rules.

For example, if you can propoerly derive sin(2x)=2sin(x)cos(x), you won't have to refer to a book to look it up when you need it.

Very few students ever get into the material that deep, but the very best do.

If you have to memorize formula, you don't understand the material. Once the test is over, it is out of your mind and you haven't learned a thing.

Screens arent making kids "dumber", but they are definitely fundamentally molding their brains to be different than the brains of any prior generation in human history.

There's definitely major downsides, and we are adamant about not getting smart phones for any of our kids until well into their HS years (oldest is 11 now), but there are also some notable benefits. At least for smart kids who are given limited and controlled access to screens/tablets, the sheer volume of knowledge they can possess at a given age compared to prior generations is REMARKABLE. My son had so many more facts rattling around in his head at any given age than anyone I knew when I was that age. He can school most adults by now on the two world wars. The 8-11 year old kids at his STEM academy can speak to adults fluently about really advanced topics for that age. And a lot of it is the ability to look up the answer to literally every question they have immediately.

Did they control for race in this study? Im convinced that what is behind a lot of worsening US averages is simply the fact that poorly performing demographic groups constitute ever increasing shares of the US population.

Quote:

---

they don't print books for anything except basic introductory concepts

---

But you learned the basic concepts and can apply them. These kids haven't learned the concepts. They just think they did. Their problem solving skills are much lower than our generation. They know how to look up answers, not solve problems. The two aren't the same.

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Disagree. A smartphone is a crutch. It's a reference that kids are trained to rely on. The second that that phone is taken away everything they used the phone for are instantly gone, and they panic when they have no ability to know pretty much anything in front of them. They rely on it just to walk around, not to learn from. It's a tool in the way your brain is a tool, not as a book is a tool. You take the brain away and you have a mindless drone that can't do anything for themselves.

---

Nonsense. They only behave that way if you let them use it that way or depend on it.

Like everything, it involves parenting and discipline.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Screens arent making kids "dumber", but they are definitely fundamentally molding their brains to be different than the brains of any prior generation in human history.

There's definitely major downsides, and we are adamant about not getting smart phones for any of our kids until well into their HS years (oldest is 11 now), but there are also some notable benefits. At least for smart kids who are given limited and controlled access to screens/tablets, the sheer volume of knowledge they can possess at a given age compared to prior generations is REMARKABLE. My son had so many more facts rattling around in his head at any given age than anyone I knew when I was that age. He can school most adults by now on the two world wars. The 8-11 year old kids at his STEM academy can speak to adults fluently about really advanced topics for that age. And a lot of it is the ability to look up the answer to literally every question they have immediately.

---

I know someone who read an entire encyclopedia when he was a kid. All 19 (or however many volumes).

That sounds impressive until you talk to him a while and realize that he gained facts without understanding them.

For example, he shocked me by explaining that the rods of the eye are processed by one side of the brain and the cones of the eye are processed by the other side of the brain. I don't know where or how he came up with such nonsense.

I loaned him my copy of Gordon Shepherd's Neurobiology so he cold read up on the rods and cones and how the ganglions rearrange themselves (except for a degree of variation in albinos, which I don't think is covered in the book) and continue back to the visual cortex on each side of the brain and of the visual processing that goes on in the visual cortex.

I think that I convinced him otherwise on this one subject.

On other subjects, not so much. He maintains that the US contributed nothing to the war effort in World War II and that victory was entirely due to the Soviet Union. He believes that the Soviet Union earned the rightful control of Japan and that we stole it from them. He also believes that we should never have been in Hawaii and should never have fought Japan.

He has lots of facts, but he has tied them together in incomprehensible ways in his mind.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

The good thing about the youth being smartphone zombies is that now you can be autistic without looking weird.

---

It's the parents that are zombies.

Why the "cellphone bans" in schools have little effect and are a dumb idea.

Like taking out cokes and candy bars from schools was going to make kids less fat. It's bad parenting, not bad kids and tech companies.

---

You cant control what the parents do, but you can at least stop the screens in school.

eric76 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Screens arent making kids "dumber", but they are definitely fundamentally molding their brains to be different than the brains of any prior generation in human history.

There's definitely major downsides, and we are adamant about not getting smart phones for any of our kids until well into their HS years (oldest is 11 now), but there are also some notable benefits. At least for smart kids who are given limited and controlled access to screens/tablets, the sheer volume of knowledge they can possess at a given age compared to prior generations is REMARKABLE. My son had so many more facts rattling around in his head at any given age than anyone I knew when I was that age. He can school most adults by now on the two world wars. The 8-11 year old kids at his STEM academy can speak to adults fluently about really advanced topics for that age. And a lot of it is the ability to look up the answer to literally every question they have immediately.

---

I know someone who read an entire encyclopedia when he was a kid. All 19 (or however many volumes).

That sounds impressive until you talk to him a while and realize that he gained facts without understanding them.

For example, he shocked me by explaining that the rods of the eye are processed by one side of the brain and the cones of the eye are processed by the other side of the brain. I don't know where or how he came up with such nonsense.

I loaned him my copy of Gordon Shepherd's Neurobiology so he cold read up on the rods and cones and how the ganglions rearrange themselves (except for a degree of variation in albinos, which I don't think is covered in the book) and continue back to the visual cortex on each side of the brain and of the visual processing that goes on in the visual cortex.

I think that I convinced him otherwise on this one subject.

On other subjects, not so much. He maintains that the US contributed nothing to the war effort in World War II and that victory was entirely due to the Soviet Union. He believes that the Soviet Union earned the rightful control of Japan and that we stole it from them. He also believes that we should never have been in Hawaii and should never have fought Japan.

He has lots of facts, but he has tied them together in incomprehensible ways in his mind.

---

So he is stupid, got it

Still stunning to me on an almost daily basis to see families at a restaurant all staring at their screens and not talking. I saw this at my elementary school as well. The second the bell rang, 7, 8, 9 year old kids would have their iPhones out and walking looking down at their screen instead of socializing and playing/walking and talking with friends.

aggiehawg said:

---

doubledog said:

---

It is not a broken education system, or do nothing parents.

---

Then what are the causes and contributing factors, in your mind, for this regression over the last generation?

---

Our generation is was TV, my father's generation it was the Radio, Jazz and Swing.

It is complicated, a simple "screen" time excuse will not suffice.

doubledog said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

doubledog said:

---

It is not a broken education system, or do nothing parents.

---

Then what are the causes and contributing factors, in your mind, for this regression over the last generation?

---

Our generation is was TV, my father's generation it was the Radio, Jazz and Swing.

It is complicated, a simple "screen" time excuse will not suffice.

---

Except the measured data is different this time and is linked to screen time.

I don't know how many times I have read about tech pioneers banning or highly restricting their own children's access to tablets and smartphones.

That fact proves nothing but it is interesting

doubledog said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

doubledog said:

---

It is not a broken education system, or do nothing parents.

---

Then what are the causes and contributing factors, in your mind, for this regression over the last generation?

---

Our generation is was TV, my father's generation it was the Radio, Jazz and Swing.

It is complicated, a simple "screen" time excuse will not suffice.

---

Okay fair point but there is a fact between those generations before screen time and that is the improvement of each generation in skills, knowledge, IQ over the 20th Century. Radio and TV did not adversely affect that progress.

Post smartphones, there has been a regression.

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

I remember someone recently saying that the current generation (and arguably the previous as well) is technology dependent, not technology competent (so they'd panic if something breaks, since they are never taught what to do when something works, other than call someone to fix it for them). I took that to mean that they not only can't function without technological references, but that they also can't fix something if it breaks and turn instantly helpless and mindless. Not sure that the latter is a completely correct assessment, but the former absolutely is. Without technology this entire generation would simply cease to function. You make someone dependent on something, then take it away, and see what happens. Like any drug, until you get that back you are unable to do anything without it.

Kids need to learn for themselves, not rely on their phones to tell them the answer to everything. Especially since after they use it as a reference to tell them something they instantly forget it. There is no learning involved, simply dependence. It is no longer a tool. It is a drug that they cannot function without.

---

This ties into something I've been *****ing about for some time - we are building out a digital world with no analog backup and even if we have backup we are going to run out of people who would know how to operate the backup, if we had to use it.

Personal rant: I'm personally becoming more and more of a Luddite over time due to a variety of devolutionary impacts due to technology, ironically. A list of negative impacts due to technology that could all be their own topics:

- Building a digital world with no contingency procedures
- AI is already regressing to an AI slop mean because it's run out of internet to scale on
- Music is now all monotonous drivel - analysis was done actually showing how there is little variability in songs now from a tone and pitch standpoint
- Social media and the myriad of ills associated to it
- Streaming has actually degraded technical sound quality of film and TV because it has forced film makers to now have to account for multiple output channels - pretty fascinating older thread on this topic on Entertainment if you can find it
- Tech laden cars are frankly a danger on the road and the ones that only want to use haptic controls and not have analog buttons and switches are even more dangerous (maybe FSD will offset this - hopefully so). Go look at the new abortion that is the Lincoln Navigator. It's almost undrivable with the amount of b.s. technology that has been crammed into it.

There have been some good tech developments obviously but the challenge for humanity is to wade through the good and bad and not become beholden to the bad part of it.

aggiehawg said:

---

doubledog said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

doubledog said:

---

It is not a broken education system, or do nothing parents.

---

Then what are the causes and contributing factors, in your mind, for this regression over the last generation?

---

Our generation is was TV, my father's generation it was the Radio, Jazz and Swing.

It is complicated, a simple "screen" time excuse will not suffice.

---

Okay fair point but there is a fact between those generations before screen time and that is the improvement of each generation in skills, knowledge, IQ over the 20th Century. Radio and TV did not adversely affect that progress.

Post smartphones, there has been a regression.

---

Can tie this all back to 2007 - iPhone 1.

AGC said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

It's not impossible to achieve; the question is if you're willing to pay the price (100% worth it ). Put them in a coop or school where most (if not all parents) forbid screen time (this means no public or large privates) and there's a negative stigma to having a phone. Let her grow up without the anxiety and depression.

---

Agreed, I just meant "impossible to achieve" as in, it is impossible for all of us to replicate the 80's and 90's for our children completely. For one, there is no Blockbuster, and everything is hyper-convenient.

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Agreed, I am not saying never ever let them use technology. I really don;t even think our two statements above are at odds...especially considering it sounds like your boys are a little older and more mature and capable than my 5 yr old. I broke out the "sky guide" app the other night when we could see Venus, Jupiter, and Mercury almost in a cluster, and she thought it was pretty cool,

But my mental state is better when I am off my phone as much as possible. I genuinely notice a difference if a weekend goes by where I basically don't even waste any time on it. My brain feels healthier. I think we owe it to our kids to teach them this and condition them to use it only as a helpful, as-needed tool (like your boys).

Good points all. We certainly are not living in the age of The Jetsons.

I keep coming back to the basics, reading, writing and arithmetic. And writing includes cursive. Being able to read a paper map and navigate without needing to be told by an artificial voice to turn here. Can't even tell time on an analog clock and as a result do not know that a quarter of an hour is 15 minutes, nor do the math to divide 60 minutes by four to get there.

YouBet said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

I remember someone recently saying that the current generation (and arguably the previous as well) is technology dependent, not technology competent (so they'd panic if something breaks, since they are never taught what to do when something works, other than call someone to fix it for them). I took that to mean that they not only can't function without technological references, but that they also can't fix something if it breaks and turn instantly helpless and mindless. Not sure that the latter is a completely correct assessment, but the former absolutely is. Without technology this entire generation would simply cease to function. You make someone dependent on something, then take it away, and see what happens. Like any drug, until you get that back you are unable to do anything without it.

Kids need to learn for themselves, not rely on their phones to tell them the answer to everything. Especially since after they use it as a reference to tell them something they instantly forget it. There is no learning involved, simply dependence. It is no longer a tool. It is a drug that they cannot function without.

---

This ties into something I've been *****ing about for some time - we are building out a digital world with no analog backup and even if we have backup we are going to run out of people who would know how to operate the backup, if we had to use it.

Personal rant: I'm personally becoming more and more of a Luddite over time due to a variety of devolutionary impacts due to technology, ironically. A list of negative impacts due to technology that could all be their own topics:

- Building a digital world with no contingency procedures
- AI is already regressing to an AI slop mean because it's run out of internet to scale on
- Music is now all monotonous drivel - analysis was done actually showing how there is little variability in songs now from a tone and pitch standpoint
- Social media and the myriad of ills associated to it
- Streaming has actually degraded technical sound quality of film and TV because it has forced film makers to now have to account for multiple output channels - pretty fascinating older thread on this topic on Entertainment if you can find it
- Tech laden cars are frankly a danger on the road and the ones that only want to use haptic controls and not have analog buttons and switches are even more dangerous (maybe FSD will offset this - hopefully so). Go look at the new abortion that is the Lincoln Navigator. It's almost undrivable with the amount of b.s. technology that has been crammed into it.

There have been some good tech developments obviously but the challenge for humanity is to wade through the good and bad and not become beholden to the bad part of it.

---

Agreed, I hate how tech-smothered some of these trucks are getting. It''s just not as reliable, and there are more potential problems as a result (costly ones). The systems are too glitchy across manufacturers.

Another area is customer service. It's such a nightmare compared to what it used to be.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

I remember someone recently saying that the current generation (and arguably the previous as well) is technology dependent, not technology competent (so they'd panic if something breaks, since they are never taught what to do when something works, other than call someone to fix it for them). I took that to mean that they not only can't function without technological references, but that they also can't fix something if it breaks and turn instantly helpless and mindless. Not sure that the latter is a completely correct assessment, but the former absolutely is. Without technology this entire generation would simply cease to function. You make someone dependent on something, then take it away, and see what happens. Like any drug, until you get that back you are unable to do anything without it.

Kids need to learn for themselves, not rely on their phones to tell them the answer to everything. Especially since after they use it as a reference to tell them something they instantly forget it. There is no learning involved, simply dependence. It is no longer a tool. It is a drug that they cannot function without.

---

This ties into something I've been *****ing about for some time - we are building out a digital world with no analog backup and even if we have backup we are going to run out of people who would know how to operate the backup, if we had to use it.

Personal rant: I'm personally becoming more and more of a Luddite over time due to a variety of devolutionary impacts due to technology, ironically. A list of negative impacts due to technology that could all be their own topics:

- Building a digital world with no contingency procedures
- AI is already regressing to an AI slop mean because it's run out of internet to scale on
- Music is now all monotonous drivel - analysis was done actually showing how there is little variability in songs now from a tone and pitch standpoint
- Social media and the myriad of ills associated to it
- Streaming has actually degraded technical sound quality of film and TV because it has forced film makers to now have to account for multiple output channels - pretty fascinating older thread on this topic on Entertainment if you can find it
- Tech laden cars are frankly a danger on the road and the ones that only want to use haptic controls and not have analog buttons and switches are even more dangerous (maybe FSD will offset this - hopefully so). Go look at the new abortion that is the Lincoln Navigator. It's almost undrivable with the amount of b.s. technology that has been crammed into it.

There have been some good tech developments obviously but the challenge for humanity is to wade through the good and bad and not become beholden to the bad part of it.

---

Agreed, I hate how tech-smothered some of these trucks are getting. It''s just not as reliable, and there are more potential problems as a result (costly ones). The systems are too glitchy across manufacturers.

Another area is customer service. It's such a nightmare compared to what it used to be.

---

Absolutely. Reverse irony....technology could actually help with telephone customers service because I would much rather talk to an English speaking robot than "Steve" or "Lisa" in India. It makes me crazy that I have to call India to talk to someone about something that is only applicable here and then I have to ask them to repeat themselves over and over again on top of it.

Only way I know around poor in-person customer service is to try and only frequent or buy local goods and services, if at all possible.

Proud to say we limit our kids screen time and my elementary kid was 99 th percentile on his last standardized test

Not the only reason but doesn't hurt to keep him thinking

ts5641 said:

---

Still stunning to me on an almost daily basis to see families at a restaurant all staring at their screens and not talking. I saw this at my elementary school as well. The second the bell rang, 7, 8, 9 year old kids would have their iPhones out and walking looking down at their screen instead of socializing and playing/walking and talking with friends.

---

One interesting story was by someone who spent the night at a friend's house when he was a kid. When the family went to supper, he was astonished to see every member of the family pull out a book and rto while they ate supper. He had not been warned about that in advance and he felt awkward sitting there watching everyone else read without saying many, if any, words during the meal.

He said that every kid in that family went on to very solid careers in things like medicine and law.

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Disagree. A smartphone is a crutch. It's a reference that kids are trained to rely on. The second that that phone is taken away everything they used the phone for are instantly gone, and they panic when they have no ability to know pretty much anything in front of them. They rely on it just to walk around, not to learn from. It's a tool in the way your brain is a tool, not as a book is a tool. You take the brain away and you have a mindless drone that can't do anything for themselves.

---

What's the difference between a phone and a book in this situation? Do you remember the pictures and words you get from a book better than you do from a phone?

I use picture recognition quite a bit to fight weeds in my yard, identify trees and plants I see when I go for runs, and have used it to identify insects, as well. It's no different than referencing a book. I can't recall the name of everything I've ever looked up, but ones I've looked up 2-3 times I remember beyond that. Just as if I referenced a book.

The problem is not the media you're using. The problem is that students aren't focused on learning the material. We think just shoving a tablet in their face and walking away is sufficient for them to learn. What did y'all do when the teacher put on a video in class and then sat at their desk grading papers? I'm willing to bet you didn't learn anything. Same with doodling, passing notes, chatting up the girl in front of you, or sleeping while the teacher is lecturing.

My kids have to do homework online from time to time. When they do, they are forced to sit at a desk or table with no other devices or distractions and I check in on them periodically and check their work. A lot of times I like to ask them what they found interesting, what they learned, etc. to make sure they are recalling the information effectively.

Y'all can blame screens all you want, but the problem is not the media but the fact that we put 100% of the learning on the media.

---

There's actually a huge difference. Reading something and truly understanding it is significantly different than pointing at something and then having your phone tell you what it is. The latter takes literally no thought, and you also know that if you want to know what it is next time all you have to do is point your phone at it again. There's no reason to learn it, and since your brain doesnt need to take that extra step, it doesnt. Not without taking it a step further, which requires effort that is no longer necessary with reliance in technology to access information. You borrow information, you don't actually own it. You see the answer, but don't understand it. It's similar to inputting a calculus equation in your graphing calculator. It spits out the answer, but do you know what it took to get to that point, or what it actually means? Nope. Because there's no reason to actually learn it if your calculator will just tell you the end result. I learned calculus in high school the old fashioned way and was damned good at it because I was taught to learn it. Then I got to idiot-level calculus at a&m as a freshman and all they did was have you input it into the calculator. It spits out the answer, but you never truly comprehend any part of the process, or even what the answer actually means/represents. I never would've known how little I knew if I only took the technology-taught calculus if I hadn't gone through actually learning it beforehand where they did the right way. Take the calculator away from the kids in that class during the final and every single kid would have scored a 0. All that was taught is how to get to the answer with the least amount of energy expended as possible. Mindless. Think anyone learned a single thing in that class? Nope. That's how literally everything is taught now. Know the answer? Great. Know how you got to it? No reason.

Like anything else, humans, and all life, take the easiest path to finding the answer or solution to a problem. That's human nature. It's just like learning a skill to earn money vs someone just handing it to you without actually doing it for yourself. Or if something breaks, you're taught who to call, not how to do it yourself. If it requires no thought, then you don't learn it. You don't have to, so why bother with something that requires effort to get to the same end result? It breeds laziness and indifference. And often they don't even realize just how ignorant and dependent they are, since they end up at the same end point either way. But you ask them to explain the process? That's when you get blank faces, and hands reaching for their phone. Take away the phone and those blank faces turn to panic and helplessness, and potentially anger.

Also, as I am in medicine, I am constantly looking up drug doses and such and don't ever need to learn them. It's pretty much the same thing. But...I know what drugs to look up without needing that reference because I understand the disease and how to treat it. Of course, now with AI, I might not even have to know that much, so the next generation of doctors should be interesting to see play out.

If there's no reason to learn something, since you just look it up, then your brain pushes it into short term memory and it never is actually learned.

I know it all sounds like the same thing, but it's quite different in terms of how we learn and process information.

---

Please describe exactly how this plays out in your mind, because in reality the only difference is that a phone will give me the information to read and reference immediately while a book requires me to thumb through pages until I match a picture with what I see. I still have to choose to read more in a book, or I can just look at the picture and the name and move on. If I want to reference it again later I can just look back in the book and find the name again and move on. A book doesn't require me to learn any more or less than I CHOOSE to, and I can make the exact same choice with a phone, tablet, laptop, etc.

Your point about medicine and understanding the disease is the same concept. You understand the disease because you CHOSE to read more and learn more. You could just as easily keep medical books on your shelf and reference them any time you need. Hell, we used to do that all the time with these things called encyclopedias. There is no difference with finding knowledge on a phone or tablet than a book. It's all about what you choose to do with the source of information.

---

I've used Seek app for years for just this purpose, and field guides before that. The difference is books give you information to identify something yourself instead of identifying it for you and then explaining how it came up with the identification. You have to make a series of informed decisions to identify a plant using a field guide. Is it a shrub or an immature tree? How can you tell the difference? Each step you have to learn about classifications to drill down to the relevant one. All of that takes learning on the part of the person.

Phone apps start at the other end of the process and tell you this is what it is. You can read about why if you want to. It's backwards from how you would identify something without any reference at all. Sure you can learn to identify this particular plant again through sheer memorization, but that's a lower level of thinking. Books teach you to do the work so that you eventually don't need them and give you a foundation of knowledge to build on.

pilgrimshadow said:

---

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Disagree. A smartphone is a crutch. It's a reference that kids are trained to rely on. The second that that phone is taken away everything they used the phone for are instantly gone, and they panic when they have no ability to know pretty much anything in front of them. They rely on it just to walk around, not to learn from. It's a tool in the way your brain is a tool, not as a book is a tool. You take the brain away and you have a mindless drone that can't do anything for themselves.

---

What's the difference between a phone and a book in this situation? Do you remember the pictures and words you get from a book better than you do from a phone?

I use picture recognition quite a bit to fight weeds in my yard, identify trees and plants I see when I go for runs, and have used it to identify insects, as well. It's no different than referencing a book. I can't recall the name of everything I've ever looked up, but ones I've looked up 2-3 times I remember beyond that. Just as if I referenced a book.

The problem is not the media you're using. The problem is that students aren't focused on learning the material. We think just shoving a tablet in their face and walking away is sufficient for them to learn. What did y'all do when the teacher put on a video in class and then sat at their desk grading papers? I'm willing to bet you didn't learn anything. Same with doodling, passing notes, chatting up the girl in front of you, or sleeping while the teacher is lecturing.

My kids have to do homework online from time to time. When they do, they are forced to sit at a desk or table with no other devices or distractions and I check in on them periodically and check their work. A lot of times I like to ask them what they found interesting, what they learned, etc. to make sure they are recalling the information effectively.

Y'all can blame screens all you want, but the problem is not the media but the fact that we put 100% of the learning on the media.

---

There's actually a huge difference. Reading something and truly understanding it is significantly different than pointing at something and then having your phone tell you what it is. The latter takes literally no thought, and you also know that if you want to know what it is next time all you have to do is point your phone at it again. There's no reason to learn it, and since your brain doesnt need to take that extra step, it doesnt. Not without taking it a step further, which requires effort that is no longer necessary with reliance in technology to access information. You borrow information, you don't actually own it. You see the answer, but don't understand it. It's similar to inputting a calculus equation in your graphing calculator. It spits out the answer, but do you know what it took to get to that point, or what it actually means? Nope. Because there's no reason to actually learn it if your calculator will just tell you the end result. I learned calculus in high school the old fashioned way and was damned good at it because I was taught to learn it. Then I got to idiot-level calculus at a&m as a freshman and all they did was have you input it into the calculator. It spits out the answer, but you never truly comprehend any part of the process, or even what the answer actually means/represents. I never would've known how little I knew if I only took the technology-taught calculus if I hadn't gone through actually learning it beforehand where they did the right way. Take the calculator away from the kids in that class during the final and every single kid would have scored a 0. All that was taught is how to get to the answer with the least amount of energy expended as possible. Mindless. Think anyone learned a single thing in that class? Nope. That's how literally everything is taught now. Know the answer? Great. Know how you got to it? No reason.

Like anything else, humans, and all life, take the easiest path to finding the answer or solution to a problem. That's human nature. It's just like learning a skill to earn money vs someone just handing it to you without actually doing it for yourself. Or if something breaks, you're taught who to call, not how to do it yourself. If it requires no thought, then you don't learn it. You don't have to, so why bother with something that requires effort to get to the same end result? It breeds laziness and indifference. And often they don't even realize just how ignorant and dependent they are, since they end up at the same end point either way. But you ask them to explain the process? That's when you get blank faces, and hands reaching for their phone. Take away the phone and those blank faces turn to panic and helplessness, and potentially anger.

Also, as I am in medicine, I am constantly looking up drug doses and such and don't ever need to learn them. It's pretty much the same thing. But...I know what drugs to look up without needing that reference because I understand the disease and how to treat it. Of course, now with AI, I might not even have to know that much, so the next generation of doctors should be interesting to see play out.

If there's no reason to learn something, since you just look it up, then your brain pushes it into short term memory and it never is actually learned.

I know it all sounds like the same thing, but it's quite different in terms of how we learn and process information.

---

Please describe exactly how this plays out in your mind, because in reality the only difference is that a phone will give me the information to read and reference immediately while a book requires me to thumb through pages until I match a picture with what I see. I still have to choose to read more in a book, or I can just look at the picture and the name and move on. If I want to reference it again later I can just look back in the book and find the name again and move on. A book doesn't require me to learn any more or less than I CHOOSE to, and I can make the exact same choice with a phone, tablet, laptop, etc.

Your point about medicine and understanding the disease is the same concept. You understand the disease because you CHOSE to read more and learn more. You could just as easily keep medical books on your shelf and reference them any time you need. Hell, we used to do that all the time with these things called encyclopedias. There is no difference with finding knowledge on a phone or tablet than a book. It's all about what you choose to do with the source of information.

---

I've used Seek app for years for just this purpose, and field guides before that. The difference is books give you information to identify something yourself instead of identifying it for you and then explaining how it came up with the identification. You have to make a series of informed decisions to identify a plant using a field guide. Is it a shrub or an immature tree? How can you tell the difference? Each step you have to learn about classifications to drill down to the relevant one. All of that takes learning on the part of the person.

Phone apps start at the other end of the process and tell you this is what it is. You can read about why if you want to. It's backwards from how you would identify something without any reference at all. Sure you can learn to identify this particular plant again through sheer memorization, but that's a lower level of thinking. Books teach you to do the work so that you eventually don't need them and give you a foundation of knowledge to build on.

---

Here here. The flaw in the pro-tech side is that the process of doing things shapes the learner in addition to finding the answer. Life is not simply goal seeking because you're deprived of complex problem solving ability and you don't know if your answer is right or wrong, so you are actually more ignorant than you believe.

Writing engages different parts of the brain than typing on a screen. Finite motor control and spatial awareness grow in addition to the task of forming words and sentences with meaning. This impacts brain development. Connecting and developing thought is brought about through iterations of drafts, so the work in an English class matters as much as the final submission (AI slop can't save you).

Reading a book does the same: it challenges you to learn and apply, and work independently but also requires memory. Trying to recall a topic or quote and finding it won't always jump out from the table of contents but the physical nature of it provides landmarks that you use in recall with memory (you remember a though process as well as the answer or what you were searching for). You'll also digest more information and understand what you're reading with all its caveats when you pull information: it links the world together in a way that a phone does not.

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Average Joe said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

I am trying my best to raise my 5 y/o girl like it is the 80's/90's. I know that's impossible to achieve, but I am doing so to the greatest extent possible. Outdoors as much as possible. This afternoon we'll go to the pool and work on swimming. Maybe fishing tomorrow evening.

Also, I am basically never on my phone around her and am trying to condition her to view too much phone/ipad as a dangerous and addicting thing. I realize that the real challenge is going to start in the coming years though.

---

I have a counter to this.

I took my boys camping and on a hike they were using an app on their phone to identify any species of plant they could. And then would add to a virtual collection. Even used it to identify poison ivy around us. At night they used one to identify stars and constellations.

Took them fishing on the coast and one of them used saltstrong to identify good spots, tidal times, wind, and suggestions for bait and colors. He limited out on trout before I did. He also used his phone to teach himself fishing knots, including some I didn't know about.

A smart phone is a tool. Teach them the right way to use them.

---

Disagree. A smartphone is a crutch. It's a reference that kids are trained to rely on. The second that that phone is taken away everything they used the phone for are instantly gone, and they panic when they have no ability to know pretty much anything in front of them. They rely on it just to walk around, not to learn from. It's a tool in the way your brain is a tool, not as a book is a tool. You take the brain away and you have a mindless drone that can't do anything for themselves.

---

What's the difference between a phone and a book in this situation? Do you remember the pictures and words you get from a book better than you do from a phone?

I use picture recognition quite a bit to fight weeds in my yard, identify trees and plants I see when I go for runs, and have used it to identify insects, as well. It's no different than referencing a book. I can't recall the name of everything I've ever looked up, but ones I've looked up 2-3 times I remember beyond that. Just as if I referenced a book.

The problem is not the media you're using. The problem is that students aren't focused on learning the material. We think just shoving a tablet in their face and walking away is sufficient for them to learn. What did y'all do when the teacher put on a video in class and then sat at their desk grading papers? I'm willing to bet you didn't learn anything. Same with doodling, passing notes, chatting up the girl in front of you, or sleeping while the teacher is lecturing.

My kids have to do homework online from time to time. When they do, they are forced to sit at a desk or table with no other devices or distractions and I check in on them periodically and check their work. A lot of times I like to ask them what they found interesting, what they learned, etc. to make sure they are recalling the information effectively.

Y'all can blame screens all you want, but the problem is not the media but the fact that we put 100% of the learning on the media.

---

There's actually a huge difference. Reading something and truly understanding it is significantly different than pointing at something and then having your phone tell you what it is. The latter takes literally no thought, and you also know that if you want to know what it is next time all you have to do is point your phone at it again. There's no reason to learn it, and since your brain doesnt need to take that extra step, it doesnt. Not without taking it a step further, which requires effort that is no longer necessary with reliance in technology to access information. You borrow information, you don't actually own it. You see the answer, but don't understand it. It's similar to inputting a calculus equation in your graphing calculator. It spits out the answer, but do you know what it took to get to that point, or what it actually means? Nope. Because there's no reason to actually learn it if your calculator will just tell you the end result. I learned calculus in high school the old fashioned way and was damned good at it because I was taught to learn it. Then I got to idiot-level calculus at a&m as a freshman and all they did was have you input it into the calculator. It spits out the answer, but you never truly comprehend any part of the process, or even what the answer actually means/represents. I never would've known how little I knew if I only took the technology-taught calculus if I hadn't gone through actually learning it beforehand where they did the right way. Take the calculator away from the kids in that class during the final and every single kid would have scored a 0. All that was taught is how to get to the answer with the least amount of energy expended as possible. Mindless. Think anyone learned a single thing in that class? Nope. That's how literally everything is taught now. Know the answer? Great. Know how you got to it? No reason.

Like anything else, humans, and all life, take the easiest path to finding the answer or solution to a problem. That's human nature. It's just like learning a skill to earn money vs someone just handing it to you without actually doing it for yourself. Or if something breaks, you're taught who to call, not how to do it yourself. If it requires no thought, then you don't learn it. You don't have to, so why bother with something that requires effort to get to the same end result? It breeds laziness and indifference. And often they don't even realize just how ignorant and dependent they are, since they end up at the same end point either way. But you ask them to explain the process? That's when you get blank faces, and hands reaching for their phone. Take away the phone and those blank faces turn to panic and helplessness, and potentially anger.

Also, as I am in medicine, I am constantly looking up drug doses and such and don't ever need to learn them. It's pretty much the same thing. But...I know what drugs to look up without needing that reference because I understand the disease and how to treat it. Of course, now with AI, I might not even have to know that much, so the next generation of doctors should be interesting to see play out.

If there's no reason to learn something, since you just look it up, then your brain pushes it into short term memory and it never is actually learned.

I know it all sounds like the same thing, but it's quite different in terms of how we learn and process information.

---

Please describe exactly how this plays out in your mind, because in reality the only difference is that a phone will give me the information to read and reference immediately while a book requires me to thumb through pages until I match a picture with what I see. I still have to choose to read more in a book, or I can just look at the picture and the name and move on. If I want to reference it again later I can just look back in the book and find the name again and move on. A book doesn't require me to learn any more or less than I CHOOSE to, and I can make the exact same choice with a phone, tablet, laptop, etc.

Your point about medicine and understanding the disease is the same concept. You understand the disease because you CHOSE to read more and learn more. You could just as easily keep medical books on your shelf and reference them any time you need. Hell, we used to do that all the time with these things called encyclopedias. There is no difference with finding knowledge on a phone or tablet than a book. It's all about what you choose to do with the source of information.

---

Books are physical, and each page is a physical location, your body is involved in finding the location, its tactile, the pages before and after have different thickness.

Your brain remembers the information PAIRED WITH A PHYSICAL LOCATION within the pages, in the book.

Our memories are extremely good at recalling object-location pairs. It's the basis of a memory technique called the memory palace. It's been used for thousands of years to remember complex and detailed information and stories. It's the method used in memory competitions to memorize random information like decks of cards and strings of numbers.

This is why information in a book is a lot more sticky in your memory and better for long term memory storage and recall. You feel the book, you turn the pages, you become familiar with the chapters and locations of graphs and pictures. Things in a book have a physical space they occupy, even if only the thickness of a paper, the fact that every object has a unique physical spacial location is why it's easier to remember and better for learning. When you recall the information your mind first will think of the place, the book and pages, and then the location-object pairing will bring the information to mind.