OP: "Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens" Comment: "And for 33.9 of those years, it will be at things that are not work related ..."
I'm not sure about you, but 6-8 of those 13 hours of my day are spent working.
Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
291–300 of 304 posts
Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#292Better than staring in books as before. Imagine the bok giving feedback to you or allowing communication.
Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they feel perfectly fulfilling and real to me That is the whole point of a simulation. Hyper-palatable food, cocaine, porn etc. they also feel good and even hyper-real in our nervous systems in the short term, but that’s not a good way to judge if they pose long term complications. Though, I’m not saying video chat is necessarily a hyperstimulus, we don’t know yet. > claiming that online interactions aren't real an…
I've been dating someone online for the last two months and I agree there is something missing, perhaps something chemical, that can't be transmitted over a screen and a speaker. But your viewpoint seems a bit too myopic. Humans are exceptional at adapting, and our brains are brilliant at filling in the blanks. I have no doubt that people can have deep and meaningful interpersonal communication without being face to…
> Humans are exceptional at adapting, and our brains are brilliant at filling in the blanks
This is exactly the problem. Our adaptive machinery can adapt to the wrong stimulus and get stuck in that. This is called "reciprocal narrowing" and is the mechanism that sustains addiction. I'm not saying videochat is necessarily the wrong stimulus or has an addictive potential, but being able to adapt doesn't mean it is the right thing for us in the long term.
> felt my social needs sated (if not my physical needs, specifically sex). ... because it's really no more a simulation that how our brains translate vibrations and light waves into sounds and pictures in the first place
This sounds like a reductionistic, cartesian model of what is going on. It assumes something like "Stimulus gets in through my senses, interpreted through my consciousness in my mind and I get what I need" or "my relational needs and my physical needs are mutually separable". Cognitive science experiments show us existence of phenomena like "blindsight", in which there is stimulus processing without possibility of conscious awareness; "implicit learning", in which there is learning without conscious awareness. In other words, our conscious awareness of what is going in is not necessarily a good indicator of what is actually going on, nor if our long term needs being actually met. We don't know if we can delineate relational and physical needs (here by physical I mean physical presence, not necessarily tactile stimulus) or to what extent we can reduce relationality to vibrations and light waves going through our auditory and visual systems.
I want to make it clear, I am not saying videochat is bad, I've spent my whole week videochatting and feel like I've met certain relational needs. But it is nonetheless a simulation, and I actually can feel tired and lonely even after a day full of videochat. I don't intend to equate both, and I want to be careful not to displace the real thing with its simulation when the opportunity arises to be present in person. Just like I need to be careful about diet coke and hyperpalatable fast food not confusing the hell out of me to the point of replacing real, long-term sustainable nutrition.
Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure there is a correlation, maybe even a strong one, but I have quite a bit of anecdata to suggest it is not true in all cases. (I grew up on a farm, and spent a helluva lot of time outside, and needed glasses long before my family had a computer; my father would have spent even more time outside than I did, and likewise is pretty nearsighted.)
The link references the rate of myopia in South Korea increasing from 18% in 1955 to 96% in 2011. This suggests 2 things: 1. Myopia is not entirely genetic, because genes for myopia could not have spread to almost all Koreans from almost no Koreans in the span of 56 years. 2. Myopia is somewhat genetic, because myopia existed in a significant proportion of the pre-industrial population.
I have always been under the impression that myopia was caused by growing too fast as a child, leading to misformed eye balls. Basically children with too much food get myopia. Surely that fits the same data pretty darn well... I wish I had a study to point to but I heard/read this decades ago.
Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#295Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#296So a few minutes ago I wrote code for a company, producing economic value. Last night I kept up with family, maintaining healthy personal relationships. Right now I'm engaging in intellectual discussion of major issues with other people. And last night I watched an episode of Mr. Robot, engaging my brain with a stimulating story. And yes, sometimes I just look at animal gifs on imgur. I see no problem continuing any…
Kind of fitting that OK Computer was released 23 years ago today. This comment reads like an alternate version of "Fitter Happier".
Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#297I've spent 34 years staring at screens since February.
Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t broken any bones. My parents were up and coming immigrants with their own business, but not successful enough to afford health insurance (pre ACA, but not post ACA either), and there weren’t poor enough for Medicaid. So my dad was clear to me that any injuries could cause us to have medical expenses that would derail us and my younger sibling’s future as well as the aging grandparents my parents were taking…
And don't you think that's a horrible situation to be in? It's completely foreign to me that there exists a first-world country where you need to bar your child from certain activities solely due to concerns over potential medical costs. That's not a criticism of your parents - their decision was completely logical in the circumstances. It's just a fundamental flaw in the US system.
Of course it’s a bad situation. Just explaining why some kids may not have had broken bones.
If you’re not in the upper class or extremely poor class in the US, there is no safety net, so if you want any chance of clawing your way up to having the various securities of life, you have to play it safe.
Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've got the same understanding - I asked my ophthalmologist about it as well because my vision is already quite bad and I'm a computer engineer. For breaks, she recommended the "20/20/20 rule" - focus your eyes on something at least 20 feet away, for 20 seconds, every 20 minutes of screen usage.
Yes, I've gotten that recommendation as well. Apparently more natural light exposure may also decrease the risk for nearsightedness. Having a window near my computer monitor makes it easy to remember to look outside whenever I'm not actively looking at the screen.
I think there is a nuance in reducing screen time versus increasing natural light exposure.
Re: Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at screens
#300If this was "Average adult will spend 34 years of their life staring at books" would that also be a bad thing? To me and my work/reaserch/fun it's the same...