The headlines in The New York Times this weekend read like a clarion call to the nation to take heed of the impact screens are having on our children — only this time, the warning is coming from the creators of the digital devices themselves:
本周末“纽约时报”的头条新闻就像一个号角，呼吁国家注意屏幕对我们孩子的影响 - 只是这一次，警告来自数字设备本身的创造者：
“A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley,” “关于屏幕和儿童开始在硅谷出现的黑暗共识”
“The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected” “富人和穷孩子之间的数字差距不是我们所期望的”
“Silicon Valley Nannies Are Phone Police for Kids.”
Journalist Nellie Bowles, who writes on tech and internet culture, leads her eye-opening three-part series with words reminiscent of something Dr. Frankenstein might have said about his destructive spawn: “The people who are closest to a thing are often the most wary of it,” she writes.
撰写有关科技和网络文化的新闻记者内利·鲍尔斯（Nellie Bowles）带领她开启了三个部分的系列文章，上面的字母让人想起弗兰肯斯坦博士 （Dr. Frankenstein）可能对他的破坏性所说的话：“最接近事物的人往往是最警惕它，“她写道。
Bowles tells Thrive Global that she was inspired to report these stories after witnessing parents in San Francisco, where she lives, getting increasingly anxious about screens. The tech professionals she interviewed talked about the addictive nature of the very gadgets they helped produce.
Bowles 告诉 Thrive Global，在她见证了她所居住的旧金山的父母，对屏幕越来越焦虑之后，她受到了启发。 她采访的技术专业人士谈到了他们帮助制作的小玩意的上瘾性。
“On the scale between candy and crack cocaine, it’s closer to crack cocaine,” Chris Anderson, the former editor of Wired and founder of GeekDad.com, told Bowles. Similarly, Athena Chavarria, who was Mark Zuckerberg’s executive assistant at Facebook and now works for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, told Bowles: “I am convinced the devil lives in our phones and is wreaking havoc on our children.”
“在糖果和可卡因之间，它更接近可卡因，”克里斯·安德森，有线前主编和创始人GeekDad.com的告诉鲍尔斯。 同样，Athena Chavarria是Mark Zuckerberg 在 Facebook 的执行助理，现在为 Chan Zuckerberg Initiative工作，他告诉 Bowles：“我确信魔鬼住在我们的手机里，并且对我们的孩子造成了严重破坏。”
Studies, in fact, demonstrate that their concerns are valid: The neurotransmitter dopamine, which is responsible for managing our brain’s reward and pleasure centers, courses through our bodies in an addictive rush whenever we receive a text, like or email. That’s not surprising when you realize that tech companies hire psychologists to help create “persuasive designs” that manipulate our minds and behaviors, which give gadgets their addictive potency, Richard Freed, Ph.D., the author of Wired Child: Reclaiming Childhood in a Digital Age, told Thrive Global.
事实上，研究表明他们的担忧是有效的：神经递质多巴胺负责管理我们的大脑的奖励和娱乐中心，每当我们收到文本，如电子邮件或电子邮件时，我们会通过我们的身体上瘾。 当你意识到科技公司聘请心理学家来帮助创造 “有说服力的设计” 来操纵我们的思想和行为时，这并不奇怪，这些设计让小玩意儿具有上瘾的能力，理查德弗里德博士，有线儿童的笔者：数字时代埋没了儿童，告诉Thrive Global。
As Bowles noted, giants in the field of technology — Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, and Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft — have long established rules in their families to limit screen time: Cook doesn’t allow his nephew to use social media and Gates refused his children cellphones until they were teenagers.
正如 Bowles 指出的那样，技术领域的巨头 - 苹果首席执行官蒂姆库克（ Tim Cook） 和微软创始人比尔盖茨 （Bill Gates）- 长期以来一直在家庭制定规则以限制屏幕时间：库克不允许他的侄子使用社交 媒体和盖茨拒绝了他的孩子手机，直到他们成年。
But no-screens households are now becoming a thing in Silicon Valley to such an extent, Bowles reported, that nannies are often forced to sign contracts that agree they will not use any screens, including their own phones, around kids when it’s not explicitly authorized by the parents that employ them. Parents’ anxiety over the potential perils of screen time has grown so frenzied that self-appointed spies now photograph caretakers in the act of using their phones around their young charges, and post the photos on parenting forums. One nanny told one of Bowles’s sources that a mother surreptitiously followed her throughout the day to make sure she wasn’t using her phone — the nanny quit on the spot once the mother revealed herself and asked a barrage of questions. “Of course, it’s very offensive on a human rights level,” Syma Latif, who operates Area Sitters in the Bay Area, told Bowles: “You’re being tracked and monitored and put on social media.”
鲍尔斯（Bowles）报告说，无屏障家庭现在已成为硅谷中的一件头等大事，鲍尔斯报道说，保姆通常被迫签署合同，同意看管好孩子们不使用任何屏幕，包括他们自己的手机，在没有明确授权的地方则由父母看护孩子。 父母对屏幕时间潜在危险的焦虑变得如此疯狂，甚至自己雇佣间谍监视看护人的行为，拍摄并将这些照片发布在育儿论坛上。 一位保姆告诉鲍尔斯的一位消息人士说，一位母亲一整天都偷偷地跟着她，以确保她没有使用她的手机 - 一旦被母亲发现保姆使用手机， 保姆将遭到质问，并当场被辞退。 “当然，这在人权层面上非常具有攻击性，”在旧金山湾区任职的Syma Latif 告诉鲍尔斯：“你正在被跟踪和监控并投入社交媒体。”
Bowles’s reporting also revealed an increasing double standard within the educational system. The original concern was that students in middle to lower-income school districts would not gain tech skills and savvy at a pace commensurate with kids in more affluent districts or private schools. Now, the worry is the exact opposite: “It could happen that the children of poorer and middle-class parents will be raised by screens,” wrote Bowles, “while children of Silicon Valley’s elite will be going back to wooden toys and the luxury of human interaction.” She noted that play-based preschools are on the rise in richer neighborhoods, while states like Utah are unveiling state-funded online-only preschools.
Bowles 的报告还显示教育系统内的双重标准越来越高。 最初的担忧是，中低收入学区的学生不会以更加富裕的地区或私立学校的孩子的速度获得屏幕技巧。 现在，担心恰恰相反：“可能会发生较贫穷和中产阶级父母的孩子将被屏幕抚养，”鲍尔斯写道，“而硅谷精英的孩子们将回归木制玩具和奢侈品 “她注意到，富裕社区的游戏幼儿园正在兴起，而像犹他州这样的州正在推出由国家资助的在线幼儿园。
To help parents and educators rethink tech-centric moves like Utah’s, Freed co-petitioned — along with 200 psychologists, including Jean Twenge, Ph.D. and Sherry Turkle, Ph.D. — the American Psychological Association (APA) to come out against clinicians who help tech companies engineer persuasive design for youth-driven apps and devices. When Thrive Global reached out to the APA, a source who asked to remain anonymous said that the petition is currently being reviewed by the Board of the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest, which could, in one of many possible scenarios, “decide to put together a group to look into whether or not there’s any scientific literature that addresses the issues the letter raises to formulate a position.”
为了帮助父母和教育工作者重新思考像犹他州，弗里德共同请愿的科技中心行动 - 以及200名心理学家，包括Jean Twenge，Ph.D。 和Sherry Turkle，博士。 - 美国心理学会（APA）针对临床医生提出要求，帮助科技公司为青年驱动的应用程序和设备设计有说服力的设计。 当Thrive Global与APA联系时，一位要求保持匿名的消息人士表示，该请愿书目前正在由公共利益心理学促进委员会审查，该委员会可以在许多可能的情况之一中“决定 汇集了一个小组，研究是否有任何科学文献可以解决信函提出的问题。“
Until then, Freed, who gives talks around the country on how parents can help their kids develop healthy relationships with technology, offers these five core steps parents can implement right now to manage their children’s screen use:
No gadget use on weekdays
Use computers only for homework on school nights
Emphasize print books at home
Postpone giving kids smartphones and data plans until 14-16
No screens in the bedroom
Freed also encourages parents to get involved with Wait Until 8th, an organization that allows parents to collectively pledge that they will not allow their child a smartphone until eighth grade. “Asking parents to get on board,” he says, will help galvanize change because a smattering of students here and there without phones won’t change the culture.
Freed还鼓励父母参与Wait Until 8th，这是一个允许父母集体承诺在8年级之前不允许孩子使用智能手机的组织。 “要求父母加入，”他说，这将有助于激发变革，因为在没有手机的情况下，不会改变文化。
For her part, Bowles says that one of her more surprising findings is that it wasn’t social media, apps or video games that Silicon Valley parents were sweating over. “It’s an issue around the screen, literally,” she says, noting that she too struggles. “I’ve tried to fight my own screen addiction,” she admits, telling of how she tried to distance herself from her phone at night. “I moved the charger to the other side of the room. Do you know what happened? I now wake up with a phone that’s not charged in my bed.” She says she’s loathe to supply prescriptives to others: “I don’t know what the solution is. I clearly don’t live a detoxed life.”
就她而言，鲍尔斯表示，她更令人惊讶的发现之一是，硅谷的父母们不只是为了社交媒体，应用程序或视频游戏而冒汗。 “这是围绕屏幕上的一个问题，从字面上看” 她说，并指出她也挣扎。 “我试图克制自己在屏幕上瘾，”她承认，并告诉她她是如何试图在晚上与手机保持距离的。 “我把充电器移到了房间的另一边。 你知道发生了什么吗？ 我现在醒来后，我的床上没有充电手机。“她说她不愿意为他人提供处方：”我不知道解决方案是什么。 我显然没有经历“数字戒毒期”的生活。“
In Bowles’s view, families and individuals should define the right screen time parameters for themselves, and schools should really think about how to use technology in ways that don’t undermine the limits parents are trying to set at home.
After reporting out the first three stories of what will be an ongoing Times series, she remains cautious about making any sweeping deductions: “You shouldn’t just assume that these things are harmless and you also shouldn’t just assume that they’re harmful.” What we should continue doing, she offers, “is having a conversation about what impact these tools are having on developing minds.”