Sadly, it’s not just good but necessary nowadays when “postmodernists” deny even the existence of objective facts.
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago
Teenagers spending eight hours or more a day looking at screens? I have to do that to earn a crust and it drives me up the wall. No wonder they’re miserable. Fresh air and vigorous exercise is what they need.
Matt M
1 year ago
It staggers me how blase society is about divorce and unmarried/single parents. I have lost count on the number of studies I have seen that show the devastating effect these things have on children. Not that you need these studies to tell you this, as I have never met a kid from a broken home who wasn’t deeply unhappy.
Yet 50% of marriages end in divorce and 50% of kids are born out of wedlock (where the rate of separation is even higher than for married couples).
I suppose the truth is just to painful to contemplate.
Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Christian Moon
1 year ago
The genetic confound rides again.
Perhaps people with a predisposition to depression, loneliness and asociality are the ones most likely to break up their marriages or to have children in unstable relationships.
These predisposition are heritable as we know from Polderman et al 2015.
Yes, untangling cause and effect is not always straightforward however many statistics one has. I shall look up Polderman et al 2015.
Tony Sandy
1 year ago
Is the use of computers cause or effect? In other words does coming from a broken home mean that life depresses (disappoints) you and leaves you seeking contact through a medium that ignores direct human contact? Maybe online life is easier for such people and not as painful as real life. From the point of view of someone, probably on the autistic spectrum, sensitivity to direct contact with ordinary human beings can be overwhelming. So for those from broken homes perhaps this is also true (instability creating sensitivity and inability to interact with others successfully).
h w
1 year ago
8 hours a day on screens in “light” use? Peer reviewed research says max is: “No more than 2 hours per day of recreational screen time.” Gov’t and schools completely ignore this; schools require kids to be on screens in and out of class. It’s a fight with a teachers to get paper and books instead of screens. If we care about kids’ development, we need an anti-screen time campaign like the anti-smoking campaigns with warnings on products, billboards, no-screen zones. https://www.participaction.com/the-science/benefits-and-guidelines/children-and-youth-age-5-to-17/
Ralph Hanke
1 year ago
Correlation does not equal causation.
I have had a number of bouts of depression over the years and turned to TV—in the old days—and tech (web browsing)—in the new days. Both offer a very handy escape and are less harmful than booze or drugs.
Sorry, still not buying the “tech is evil” argument. At least not based on this article.
Now the family instability piece…
On other breaking news, the sky is blue and water is wet.
Bear defecates in woodlands.
It’s always good to have the ‘bleeding obvious ‘ backed up by research and discussion.
Sadly, it’s not just good but necessary nowadays when “postmodernists” deny even the existence of objective facts.
Teenagers spending eight hours or more a day looking at screens? I have to do that to earn a crust and it drives me up the wall. No wonder they’re miserable. Fresh air and vigorous exercise is what they need.
It staggers me how blase society is about divorce and unmarried/single parents. I have lost count on the number of studies I have seen that show the devastating effect these things have on children. Not that you need these studies to tell you this, as I have never met a kid from a broken home who wasn’t deeply unhappy.
Yet 50% of marriages end in divorce and 50% of kids are born out of wedlock (where the rate of separation is even higher than for married couples).
I suppose the truth is just to painful to contemplate.
The genetic confound rides again.
Perhaps people with a predisposition to depression, loneliness and asociality are the ones most likely to break up their marriages or to have children in unstable relationships.
These predisposition are heritable as we know from Polderman et al 2015.
Yes, untangling cause and effect is not always straightforward however many statistics one has. I shall look up Polderman et al 2015.
Is the use of computers cause or effect? In other words does coming from a broken home mean that life depresses (disappoints) you and leaves you seeking contact through a medium that ignores direct human contact? Maybe online life is easier for such people and not as painful as real life. From the point of view of someone, probably on the autistic spectrum, sensitivity to direct contact with ordinary human beings can be overwhelming. So for those from broken homes perhaps this is also true (instability creating sensitivity and inability to interact with others successfully).
8 hours a day on screens in “light” use? Peer reviewed research says max is: “No more than 2 hours per day of recreational screen time.” Gov’t and schools completely ignore this; schools require kids to be on screens in and out of class. It’s a fight with a teachers to get paper and books instead of screens. If we care about kids’ development, we need an anti-screen time campaign like the anti-smoking campaigns with warnings on products, billboards, no-screen zones. https://www.participaction.com/the-science/benefits-and-guidelines/children-and-youth-age-5-to-17/
Correlation does not equal causation.
I have had a number of bouts of depression over the years and turned to TV—in the old days—and tech (web browsing)—in the new days. Both offer a very handy escape and are less harmful than booze or drugs.
Sorry, still not buying the “tech is evil” argument. At least not based on this article.
Now the family instability piece…