Hacker News Reader

Comment by superkuh | Hacker News Reader

I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century when televisions came about. It really makes me doubt the entire premise as screens have not changed since then. It just seems like another unfounded moral panic like when people blamed books, newspapers, or radio for youth misbehavior. Every generation has it's own. It's weird that we've gone back to the 1940s for the 2020s moral panic.

Using EEG to try to say something about executive function has about as much legitimacy as a horoscope does about how my day will go. It's amazing this passed JAMA's review to be published.

View on HN

"screens have not changed since then"

What? They've changed massively. The displays are different sizes, they're made of different materials, they're more portable, they're more interactive, the colors are brighter, the resolution is better. Our current generation of screens are ubiquitous in a way that TV was not, and they are qualitatively different. Surely the effect on our brains could be different. Not saying that this particular study is great but I don't understand how anyone can dismiss this line of thinking as nothing more than the same moral panic Socrates once had about books, or whatever. Have you not noticed changes in your own attention span, memory, and thought processes since the advent of smartphones and tablets?

>Have you not noticed changes in your own attention span, memory, and thought processes since the advent of smartphones and tablets?

I have never owned a smart phone or tablet. I use a dumb phone (Nokia 6030) and desktop (or laptop) computers. Smartphones and tablets are terrible computers, not because they have magic screen powers to influence your brain but because they have limited volume for heat dissipation/energy storage, limited network capability due to radio power constraints and random round trip time, terrible IO, locked down software, and generally are ankle bracelet like tracking devices with no way to remove the battery.

So you never owned a smartphone or tablet but think they're "terrible computers"?

That sounds like an uninformed opinion. Power dissipation sucks on PCs because they're PCs using x86 basically.

And, like, they make ARM / RISC laptops. Lotta articles about them recently, too.

It honestly does feel like they have magic screen powers to influence your brain. You'd likely understand what I'm talking about if you'd ever owned one. The interactivity, the high quality and brightly colored displays, the touch feedback and notifications...these devices are like brain candy. They're extremely pleasurable to use and if you get used to using them often it's very hard to pull yourself away from them.

  It honestly does feel like they have magic screen powers to influence your brain. You'd likely understand what I'm talking about if you'd ever owned one.

Also anecdotally, my (infant) son is absolutely mesmerized by the sight of a phone screen. I don't let him see it generally, but if he casually spots a screen, it's like it's the only thing in the world.

That's so freaky to think about! I don't have kids but I've noticed a lot of the same things in myself. If I turn the display grayscale it's like it instantly loses 80% of its allure, which has me convinced that the bright colors are a huge part of why these devices are so mesmerizing to our lizard brains. I'd imagine that that has an extra strong pull for little kids who are already drawn to bright colors!

It was exactly like this for me as a kid in the 80s. Any time there was a screen it would grab my attention.

Of course we are talking about tube TV, something others in this thread are dismissing as not the same thing as smartphones.

I think the real reason is because it actually was the most interesting thing in the doctors waiting room. Does anyone really expect a dog-eared puzzle missing 40% of its pieces to hold a kids attention better than sesame street?

What you're describing is a dopamine rush. I get the same thing when I watch videos of games I was addicted to once. It's not the device itself that causes it.

As a counter-experience: I'm over thirty and only got a modern smartphone a few years ago. The thing is awful. The touch interface is finicky, even after long use. Holding the thing for an extended amount of time is uncomfortable, even after long use. UI design seems universally terrible. All the apps I tried were disorganized and didn't quite serve the purpose I had expected, but they did always give me way too many unlabeled buttons and random pop-ups to tap, and asked for my money/attention every few minutes. The Android OS is obscurantic and loves to give you completely meaningless things to tap: "Tap here to optimize your device", like fucking what? I downloaded a game that appealed to me with loot boxes and sexy characters, but after an initial "wow, phone hardware has come a long way," the novelty wore off very quickly. Frankly, I now loathe the thing. The amount of frustration I've had with it, and the idea that it will just become ever more mandatory as every asshole company and government office loves the idea of shoving you through exactly, for their purposes, calibrated UI that you can't control or argue with -- it outweighs any positive experience I've had from it by a large factor. I don't feel any magic feel-good screen powers, only irritation.

Well, yeah, but how is it not the device itself that causes it? I'm addicted to the dopamine rush from interacting with the device. The cause is both the addiction in my brain and the addictive properties of the device that gave rise to it in the first place.

I used a flip phone for a year after having had a smartphone for a decade and I felt similarly to you when I first went back to my smartphone. It was overstimulating and I hated it. I have always used an iPhone, though, and I find that they're a significantly better user experience than Android so I didn't notice the UX problems you described. More like the entire thing was just TOO MUCH COMING AT ME ALL THE TIME AHHHHHH! After a few months I was back to being addicted and it all felt normal again. I miss my flip phone a lot but life without a smartphone was just too annoying.

Basically, I despise my smartphone, but I'm still addicted to it. I use it even when I don't want to and when it prevents me from doing other things I'd rather be doing. I try to stop and eventually I always give in. It's a legitimate behavioral addiction and I believe the problem is both the design of specific apps and properties inherent to the device itself.

> Well, yeah, but how is it not the device itself that causes it? I'm addicted to the dopamine rush from interacting with the device.

You wouldn't blame trees or paper if you were addicted to some books. And I bet there would also be a set of books that you just couldn't stomach reading, due to how uninteresting to you they were (but were liked by others).

Are the trees and paper the problem? Is it the shape/format of a typical book? Or is it just certain kinds of books that you get addicted too? What about people who also like the type of books that you are addicted to, but they aren't addicted to them like you are? That sounds like a book type+personal problem to me, not a trees and paper problem.

I think that certain aspects of the design of some electronic devices, particularly phones and tablets, are a huge part of the reason why they're so addictive. I'm specifically thinking about the screen resolution, brightly colored displays, and interactivity. How many people have you ever met who feel they have an addictive relationship to their kindle? I think if phones were grayscale e-ink displays with limited interactivity and no ability to play videos they would be much less addictive. When I turn my phone to grayscale it's immediately much less compelling.

If someone developed a new form of paper and suddenly millions of people were hooked on books published on that particular paper — wildly different books and only books printed on that kind of paper — it would make sense to conclude that there might be something about the new form of paper that's contributing to the problem. I'm sure I'm not the only one who found social media less compelling when I could only access it on a desktop computer. In my opinion the design of smartphones and tablets is not something we can just ignore when thinking about how and why they might be addictive. The devices themselves are brain candy just like the apps that run on them.

So you have little experience with what you're talking about, but it doesn't stop you from claiming things about their effects with a high degree of confidence?

Moreover parents (the vast majority) use these screen as babysitters —TV did some of that some of the time, but mostly not. But with mobile devices they are ubiquitous in cars, restaurants, airplanes and the home.

It’s a long stretch to say they are equivalent for sure.

If nothing else they deserve to be studied for effects rather than dismiss it as “yet another moral panick”

Near the end of the article, or my attention span, they mention that they urgently need to contrast the actual screen time from societal factors that influence the parents to use the screen as babysitter.

I think there are a bunch of studies about the amount of babble conversation, "I spy" or other awareness games, etc. from primary caregiver is paramount and the moms [etc.] out on walks generally have their baby just zoning out while they surf fast fashion with one hand on the stroller.

An anecdotal comment on screens: When I got my first flat-screen HD TV, and watched actual HD content on it, I had a visceral reaction to the higher resolution. I could remember seeing the lines/pores on people's faces, and it was honestly jarring. I almost plugged my old tube TV back in.

I've done some work with the Amish, and the mind-blown can't-look-away effect of a low quality digital picture frame on fully grown adults raised some red flags for me. Brains are very good at adapting to their surroundings. I'm not convinced of the legitimacy of a moral panic, but something about screens is very unnatural.

> Using EEG to try to say something about executive function has about as much legitimacy as a horoscope

What? From TFA:

> EEG data over the midfrontal and parietal regions have been used to delineate potential neural mechanisms of attention and executive function

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1087054717718263

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-95848-9_...

They didn't just look at EEG results either

> Objective executive function assessments were administered using the Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment, second edition (NEPSY-II)

...whereas there are no scientific studies that have shown support for the accuracy of horoscopes. Any specific criticisms besides the generic "moral panic" that gets posted on every article like this?

There was certainly worry about this earlier, though I don't know if there was any research done. My parents limited screen time when I was growing up (born 1985).

I do think there's been a substantial change in child-targeted media over the years. In the days of broadcast only tv, you couldn't turn the tv on at any time of day and expect to find children's programming. The advent of cable and home video players changed that, but not everybody had cable and not everybody chose to buy kids show recordings. Parents could make those decisions occaisionally and then be stuck with them, rather than having to fight a continuous battle of self-control.

Other big changes occurred with the rise of children's programming on youtube and the invention of smartphones. Basically in less than 100 years we've gone from no childrens screen media exising at all to an unlimited quantity available for free in every adult's pocket 24 hours a day.

Cultural attitudes and norms have changed greatly. There would generally be one television in the house and deciding which station to watch was often not an individual decision. People would also think there was something wrong with you if you spent too much time watching television.

Even into the late '90s, I recall people being disgusted and scandalized at rumors that so-and-so spends all day playing computer games. Now that everyone has their own personalized screen wherever they go, attitudes are somewhat different.

Both the use-case and the physical screen have changed so much since 1930s television broadcasts it makes me wonder if you drive a dinosaur to work.

> I wonder why this effect was not discovered when screens were first invented and entered the home back in the early 20th century

I wonder why I was required to sit 1.5 meters away from the screen a generation after TV entered the home. Do modern kids sit this far away from tablets?

Screens are far more interactive now. Perhaps that’s a component as well

I think this might be something to it. I’ve noticed parallels between the stereotypical “kid glued to their phone” and “elderly person glued to slot machine at the casino”. Both of those are more interactive that TV.

This paper is talking about screen use by infants - within the first year of life. Screen interaction can not be the major problem here, it's much more likely to be a lack of interaction with other humans. That's key to infant development, so it shouldn't be a surprise that a lack of stimulus from carers would lead to issues later.

I'm not sure why it would be true that screen time is not a problem for a <1yr old. At about 6-9 months (maybe before) they are able to interact with the screen, and they interact much more with it if it has bright colors and responds to their touch. We would occasionally allow our eldest to use the phone around this age and she would become despondent if it was taken away. So we decided never to do that again.

Of course, a lack of interaction with humans could be a factor too but in our case we were literally playing with it alongside her and she would still get upset if it was taken away.

Not saying that it wouldn't be an issue at older ages as well, since for millenia children learned by watching the other people around them and learning from them, not from screens. That's my essential point - that's utterly essential for infants, even more at that age than later. Not that suddenly it becomes ok!

But if we want to keep the discussion on topic, we should talk about the age group being studied. Beyond that, we want to have a different study.

(edit, grammar because it's really too early in the morning for writing)

Ah apologies. In your first post I read "can not" as "cannot"

This study was pretty much only about TV time. It took place before handheld devices were ubiquitous in Singapore, where the subjects live

Very important point for the discussion

More people have access to screens now, and (anecdotally) parents were much more careful about screen time in the early 80s/90s.

They compared children starting at 12-18 months and ending at 9 years of age. This study would have been unreasonable as far as I understand it until screens got small enough to put in a crib or only include parents who hold their child in their lap while watching television or have a television adjacent to a crib.

99% of kids can sit without support at 9.2 months.[0] 97% can crawl by 12 months.[0]

Kids in the 12-18 month range don't stay in the crib or a lap all day.

[0] https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/child-growth/c...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com