Would You Give Your Children Drugs?

Intro

Sorry if the question was too strong, but this is the question my latest reading kept asking me. As drugs, screens are addictive, detrimental to development and hurtful for the health of our younger humans.

That would be the shortest summary from this book "Screen Damage", by Michel Desmurget. A neuroscientist, Desmurget has been working for years on research related to the impact of digital in human development.

Why reading this? Parenting in a topic of interest for me - I am a father of twins!

If that wouldn't be enough, over my years of experience with career & personal development, I have learnt that many concepts can be freely applied to adult development, while others can still be used when adjusted.

In the end, we are all humans. And I feel we should listen to Michael. But wait...

Why is the Author so Angry?

If you tried this book, and you gave up quickly, this may be the reason why.

He is angry. He writes about this anger and recognizes that his feelings will come across too bluntly across the book.

The reason why he is so angry is this: he has a lot of data, and he studied the matters deeply, much more any average person would (me & myself included), and he feels frustrated that he is not listened to.

Frustrated that society moves in the opposite direction and is misled by commercial interests and the media.

I love this example he gives towards the chapter around the effects of screen usage, where media used research that compared grades amongst children using video games or social media. Through the results, they highlighted that video gamers would score 15 points more on average in math...

But they never mentioned that this is comparing with the social media users, and never bothered to mention that those grades represent a 20 points drop compared with the average student grade!

There are many, many examples of research misuse by the media in this book. It reminded me this other book, "How to Lie with Statistics" - that should be mandatory reading in life, or pre-requisite before reading the news...

But this is also a problem and weakness of his book.

We have all been in that situation at least once: you know you are right, but you get so desperate about it that you can't have a normal conversation anymore. That only works with those already following what you preach and pushes others further away from the conversation.

That is really sad. In a world that gets more and more polarized (see my book review on "Why Are We Polarized!"), we need more of these smart people building bridges, not burning them.

Let me try to do my part here then: find a summary of his insights down below, all angriness removed! (as best as I could)

"(...) the digital natives do not exist."

That's how Michel starts the conclusion of his very first chapter.

While I slightly disagree with his point, there is a merit into that when it goes to exaggerations like "the brains of this new generation work differently". No, they don't.

It takes millennia for something like this to happen in a way that can be observed and measured. Let alone a way that produces results.

Where I disagree with him is around how we experience life and how these experiences translate into different approaches when we are solving problems; being exposed to digital earlier on will lead people to find digital solutions first, just because that's what they are experienced with.

If I never use paper, I won't think on a solution that relies on it.

Then I can agree with him again: that is not necessarily good. You want people who can contemplate multiple alternatives, not just one.

Parents Are Still in Control

Or, at least, they should be.

The author criticizes the several arguments used by parents who allow their kids excessive usage of screens. That includes teenagers, and that includes the excuse that "children will be socially isolated if they don't have a smartphone like the others".

He presents again research indicating that this is not truth, and that the negative effect of online bullying for example can be far more devastating than preventing kids access to the devices.

Personally, I do find it hard to control it, yet I agree with the author that "being hard" is a bad excuse. As parents, we have a very important and maybe only real responsibility: to protect children. If limiting screen time produces this result, it's what should be done.

At the same time, the author is very clear on how it should be done: creating clear rules (i.e. transparency and clarity), minimizing ambient demands (i.e. not having screens available everywhere) and most importantly explaining & justifying the rules with the little ones.

I find that to be kind, respectful and consequent: adjust to the level that children can understand yet having the conversation and having space for dialogue. In that sense, this book and all the data can be a good starting point.

What really convinced me about the importance of the topic was not this book; it was a coincidence. While reading it, I came across several articles of tech executives who... prevent their kids to access screens regularly!

Please don't believe me - read it directly from the source: Bill Gates and Steve Jobs Limited Screen Time for Their Kids (businessinsider.com)

Their point is that tech can be easily learnt, while the other stuff cannot, and the kids should invest their time on what's truly most valuable for their lives. If the ones selling tech to all of us do that with their children, why should we embark on profusely giving their tech to ours?

Any industry is very good at selling things we don't actually need.

Why Technology is Used in Schools

You already know the answer to this question. Hint: it's the same reason why we use technology in companies most of the time.

To lower costs! Yes, if the school from your kids start introducing more and more online programs, it's not because they are considering what is best for the child, it's because it is cheaper. They can get it to be "good enough".

There are loads of evidence in the book about effectiveness of learning through different approaches. Unsurprisingly, learning with a person still beats all other setups. But there are some traps...

"My kid is learning better online than with the teacher!", one could claim. Is it because the technology is great? Or is it because the teacher was not good? Let me ask you a few more questions:

• How much are the governments truly investing on teachers?
• Why is that home schooling often works for children who have problems at school?
• Why do rich people pay expensive tutors from their children?

Best teachers make the true difference in education.

No need to think like the author, just ask the questions and find your own answers. Again, the book brings more than enough data to help with the process and take fact-based / data-driven decisions.

The More Terrifying Effects of the Screens

Before concluding, the author goes through the most sensitive topic of the book, the consequences of children's screen abuse for recreational purposes.

It starts easy, with the effects on sleep. We already heard about those effects many times but let me share a personal experience.

I do like video games, and I was gifted with a FitBit for Christmas. Then I run the self-test: I tried a few times to play games closer to my sleep time. I tried to avoid any other interference to my sleep (e.g., alcohol - controlled trial ??).

The results? Consistently poorer sleep, with a similar rating comparing to having 3-4 drinks before bedtime. Down 15 points out of 100.

The fallacy of using screens to get to sleep can be easily broken by running this test yourself. Shutting down after using the screen won't provide you good sleep, falling sleep fast has very little to do with sleep quality.

Next concern is movement. Screens tend to keep us attached to chairs for most of the time. There are alternatives, yes, and that's much the point: we need movement to be healthy.

Very little to debate here, as you may have heard the several studies linking back pain issues with screen usage, as one example.

The last, and most impactful concern shared by the author, is how the influence of risky content (sex, smoking, alcohol, violence) can be a prescriber of standards.

The examples from research related to violence are extremely clear, and once you think about it, it just makes sense. If you see all the time your favorite characters hitting others to get what they want, you may create the neural connections and then pre-disposition to do the same.

To be clear: the author is not claiming that children playing video games will become serial killers, and this kind of exaggeration is used by the media as a counter argument.

His argument is more subtle, and I loved how he linked it to questions around diversity and inclusion.

What are the Actual Recommendations?

While there are some explicit directions provided in the last chapter, they are also somewhat scattered throughout the book, which may make people feel confused. Let's focus on the last chapter because it simplifies everything.

To get it started, he breaks the advice according to two age groups, before 6 and after that. I like to think he did it on purpose not having a higher limit, even if the book is somewhat directed to parents. Why?

That was a way of telling us: that's what he would recommend to us, adults, too.

For the younger kids, under six, the guidance is no screens at all. While the propose sounds harsh, one should notice the vast literature supporting it, and at the same time several mentions from the author that the occasional, limited exposure, with appropriate content, shouldn't be a problem.

His concern is more with the habit, with the recurrence.

For the "older than 6" group, the recommendations are extended and specific:

1. No more than 30-60 minutes per day, including all sorts of content from all screens.

A challenge, to say the least, for teenagers who would use screens for homework. Something that would have been impossible to me, as a teenager, as I was already a software developer.

My take on this rule would be to impose such a limit for entertainment activities on screen, and to find time for outdoors & exercising activities often. I know, I would have benefited from that.

2. No screens in the bedroom.

There are actually two other recommendations pairing with this one: no screens early morning or close to bedtime. Both secondary recommendations are supported by experts in the fields of productivity, mindfulness and sleep. There must be something there.

Besides those, having screens in the bedroom will affect the ability of controlling content and potentially exposing children to very avoidable risks. Kids shouldn't really be seeing the Momo or the 'blackout challenge' on YouTube!

3. No inappropriate content. That's something that I personally felt changing significantly over the years, with a lot more tolerance to exposing children and young adults to things they are still unable to manage.

That's also not to say we should overprotect them. Sometimes watching a more difficult movie together with them, and then talking about it, can be an interesting educational activity and a way to further connect with them.

4. "One thing at a time", or as we say - no multitasking!

The author discussed the additional problems arriving from using multiple screens at the same time, e.g. watching a movie while texting with friends.

I have done that, so I know (and you probably know) - it does not work well. It dilutes attention on all sides, gets one tired and converts into a compounding waste of time.

Multitasking is not a good solution for time management.

How do I fit?

If you ask some of my friends and some of my family, they may tell you I am too strict with the kids when it comes to screens. If you would ask this author, he would disagree as say I am letting them too lose. Why? Because we:

• Sporadically allowed the kids 20 minutes of singing cartoons when they were under two, maybe 3-4 times a week.
• As many parents, had them for a few months for 4-6 hours a day with the screens during COVID for the remote schooling when they were 7.
• Have no restrictions of screen time for them ever since they turned 6 years for when we are visiting friends which kids have preference for using screen, as long as they are not playing violent games.
• Impose generous limits (2 hours) since they turned 8 years for when we they have visitors at home who have difficulties playing with other things than with the screens.

No, I would not fit his definition of a role model. Yet - yes, we have significant limits:

• Screens during the week only for supervised studying.
• No real limits over the weekend, but we try to do loads of activities with them and most of the time they have no screen time, none at all.
• No TV on the bedroom. We actually keep only one TV to be used for the entire family.
• No violent games and we are very careful with the movies too.

What changes or actions have I thought about introducing after reading this book?

• I will re-think allowing them to play the Lego-games (e.g. Lego Star Wars), and how quickly they will advance in the Harry Potter movies, as they do introduce certain amount of violence.
• I will ask them to read the conclusions on the chapters. Allow them to learn by themselves.

I don't feel I am a bad father or a great father because of any of these decisions, but I do feel great that I am trying my very best for my kids. And getting better informed should support me in such journey.

Observations

As I mentioned before: the angry tone in the book does not help those who would benefit most from reading it. The accusations and aggressive tone would not be my choice, if I had the amount of data and experience the author has.

That said: it is a very informative book, and as such I recommend it to support people to make their own decisions regarding screen usage, for themselves and for their children.

• Easy of reading: 2 stars. aggressive and repetitive.
• Learning something new: 5 stars. There are close to 600 notes! Most pointing to extensive research. That's almost 3 notes per page. It's a lot of knowledge you get per page you consume.
• Interesting and Engaging: 3 stars. it's kept short and to the point. Not the most engaging, but having the goal of being informative, I appreciate it is rather shorter.

You don't have to fall in love with a book in order to get a positive effect from its reading. I feel this is the case here.

I have learnt, I will take action based on it, and even recommend it... despite not being its biggest fan!

What are your screen management strategies, for you and your kids? Share!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

? Follow, connect with me?Eduardo dos Santos Silva??? Ring the bell on my profile