I was rather confused when sociologist Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation, came out earlier this year, which examines the harmful effects of phone and social media use among children and teenagers.
I think it's a matter of emphasis/framing. “Social media is bad” (with implications like “we should ban it”, “those companies are evil”, etc.) vs. “focus and attention are important and we should protect that.”
I think some of Haidt's suggestions make a lot of sense (no phones in the classroom!) but it gets framed as “social media is poison.”
Yes, agreed! Social media doesn't have to be viewed as innately bad; it's a certain (and widespread) way of using it that is not-great for our attention, and we can and should find ways to encourage responsible use.
i'll be curious to hear if your perspectives on this changes as you step deeper into parenthood as well. it's been top of of mind for me as our kids get closer to "phone" age.
I agree that protecting our attention is of paramount importance. In particular, as more and more AI generated content tries to grab it. We need to defend ourselves against AI. How can we do this?
People cannot compete against AI. This would be like running against a car. Running can be fun, but no one would compete with machines.
If we want to be faster than a car, we build a faster car.
Similarly, we need to build AIs that protect our attention from other AIs.
I really enjoyed this one. It made me think about 2 possible futures, or perhaps systems dynamics: (1) the sociological (if not economic) alignment of the median tech worker/technologist with reasonable industrial self-regulation, and (2) whether public company feedback structures in the market mean that this may necessarily either be better done by a privately held company consortium or by credible threat of (worse) government regulation.
I think it's a matter of emphasis/framing. “Social media is bad” (with implications like “we should ban it”, “those companies are evil”, etc.) vs. “focus and attention are important and we should protect that.”
I think some of Haidt's suggestions make a lot of sense (no phones in the classroom!) but it gets framed as “social media is poison.”
Looking forward to reading the full piece!
Yes, agreed! Social media doesn't have to be viewed as innately bad; it's a certain (and widespread) way of using it that is not-great for our attention, and we can and should find ways to encourage responsible use.
ohhhh can't wait to read/listen to this
i'll be curious to hear if your perspectives on this changes as you step deeper into parenthood as well. it's been top of of mind for me as our kids get closer to "phone" age.
What age is phone age?
Excited to read this!
I agree that protecting our attention is of paramount importance. In particular, as more and more AI generated content tries to grab it. We need to defend ourselves against AI. How can we do this?
People cannot compete against AI. This would be like running against a car. Running can be fun, but no one would compete with machines.
If we want to be faster than a car, we build a faster car.
Similarly, we need to build AIs that protect our attention from other AIs.
I really enjoyed this one. It made me think about 2 possible futures, or perhaps systems dynamics: (1) the sociological (if not economic) alignment of the median tech worker/technologist with reasonable industrial self-regulation, and (2) whether public company feedback structures in the market mean that this may necessarily either be better done by a privately held company consortium or by credible threat of (worse) government regulation.
I don't read Sacasas' piece in response to Gioia (nor his work in general) that way at all.
How did you read his piece?
Step 4: Profit.
No more confuse.