101–110 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless a fitbit has a convenient keyboard I've been missing for years, no, it does not remotely have all of the attention, focus and de-socialisation problems.
Probably 90% of what kids do on phones is consumption, not production.
There is a striking divide between how the rich and FAANG employed treat technology around their kids versus everyone else. The single most potent difference I’ve seen as a result is their kids’ ability to maintain eye contact during conversation.
Joke’s on you, I’ve never been able to maintain eye contact with anyone and I grew up long before smartphones were a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How ever did anyone survive before I really, really hate this mindless, lazy line of argument in general. It gets tossed out with absolutely everything, from the internet to vaccines to modern farming. The simple answer in many cases to "how did anyone survive before X" is "well, often they didn't". Life expectancies were in fact lower in the past. More people died, or were maimed, with no hope of treatment. Or som…
I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Then look at the downsides, which are pervasive - inattention, disruption, distraction. If you still want it, put a landline phone in each classroom on the teacher's desk. The principal can also have a switch…
Yeah, there were no school shootings in my state in the 90s either. But since Columbine objective fact is there have been over 400 affecting almost 400k students [0], and the trend doesn't seem to be going down. Events like sudden wildfires going out of control in a real hurry are now also radically different then even 20 years ago. And yes, some of the scheduling and health features watches offer would have been very helpful to me in school thanks. The communication features of watches are pleasantly minimal and also almost necessarily public. They only work well 2-way with voice, which is not something one can do silently by definition and thus highly policeable in class. The information consumption capability is highly minimal. Watches also do not have cameras with all the associated issues. And it'd be possible to take the communication restrictions further with cellular restrictions in school and forcing everything through the school's firewall.
>Then look at the downsides, which are pervasive - inattention, disruption, distraction.
Out of genuine curiosity: can you show me some good studies on this with respect to watches, not phones? On the smart phone side yes, I've absolutely both seen studies and personally experienced the addictive and distracting aspects. But I have not seen anything like that with watches, and my personal experience is also that it's completely different in usage.
I stand by my assertion: you threw out a form of argument that is lazy, shallow, and constantly misapplied. Even if in this specific case the balance of factors weighs against any smart devices at all (which I both extremely doubt and think will become extremely problematic for other reasons longer term), the form of argument "how did anyone survive before X" is so regularly bad faith, aggressively stupid, or both that it coming out instantly makes me more not less suspicious of whichever side the person stating it is supporting.
----
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-...
My daughter's school gives all the kids ipads and she got a new one this year. The IT guy gave it to her before locking it down so she installed all the dumb apps she wanted on it before handing it back over. The point, aside from how proud I am of my daughter, is that kids are going to find a way to get what they want. This is an arms race. It'll be interesting to watch.
I've never heard a good, convincing explanation as to why on earth children need iPads for any reason. Are the schools just not doing their jobs, and letting the iPads "teach" the children rather than a person doing it?
Having used a Palm Pilot to genuine benefit in highschool in the 90s, and having finally just gotten a smart watch in part specifically to reduce smartphone usage, I have mixed feelings about broad restrictions. Networked smart phones absolutely have major addictive and disruptive effects, and are hard to police in practice. But watches provide some pretty useful health and emergency benefits, while IME have lived up…
> But watches provide some pretty useful health and emergency benefits For kids? How ever did anyone survive before 1990.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fix the fcc.
The FCC is already on a pretty optimal answer in this case, it's physics you'd want to fix. Completely jamming all cell signals disrupts the public and private airspace well beyond the school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Then look at the downsides, which are pervasive - inattention, disruption, distraction. If you still want it, put a landline phone in each classroom on the teacher's desk. The principal can also have a switch…
> I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Yeah, there were no school shootings in my state in the 90s either. But since Columbine objective fact is there have been over 400 affecting almost 400k students [0], and the trend doesn't seem to be going d…
Yes, school shootings are a problem. But why does there need to be 30 cell phones in the classroom? The landline on the teacher's desk can be enough. Or even a button to turn off the jammer.
For wildfire, call the principal who then hits the fire button. We had tornado drills in elementary school. No phones were required, it was a siren mounted on a pole. It worked fine.
Who needs 1000 phones in the school?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in Germany, most stores have effective zero cell reception immediately once you enter in the store and everything is normal once you are near the exit. In stores where people can order online, they offer free wifi(sometimes). I can see a similar approach in schools.
> most stores have effective zero cell reception Is this intentional or a consequence of closed brick construction?
New Zealand just banned student mobile phones recently in all schools [1]. I would guess LTE connected devices would also count. I think banning fitness trackers is a bit much, they are very useful for sports such as cycling, running, tri & swimming. [1] https://www.education.govt.nz/school/digital-technology/cell...
> I think banning fitness trackers is a bit much, they are very useful for sports such as cycling, running, tri & swimming. The ban seems to target children too young to need to keep track of things like that, as far as I understand the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Then look at the downsides, which are pervasive - inattention, disruption, distraction. If you still want it, put a landline phone in each classroom on the teacher's desk. The principal can also have a switch…
> I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Yeah, there were no school shootings in my state in the 90s either. But since Columbine objective fact is there have been over 400 affecting almost 400k students [0], and the trend doesn't seem to be going d…