Remix.run Logo
chis 13 hours ago

It's so insane that they let things go this far. It could have been immediately obvious to those involved that cell phones in class would have immensely negative effects. I mean they talk about a lunch room "quiet enough to hear a pin drop"??

I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school. That time period is probably more important than any of the classes themselves.

SchemaLoad 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I feel like we have had a long history of overreacting to new things. "D&D is the devil", "Rock music is evil", etc. But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful. But it rolled in so rapidly that it was universal before we had the chance to push back.

I think chatbots and AR glasses are going to supercharge these social problems at a rate much faster than phones and facebook ever could.

hamdingers 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> But it rolled in so rapidly that it was universal before we had the chance to push back.

This can't be it. I was in high school when smartphones were coming out and there was zero tolerance for them or any other electronic devices (dumbphones, ipods, palm pilots, etc) in the classroom.

I don't know when or why it happened but allowing smartphones in school was a conscious choice and a policy change.

zhivota 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pretty simple really, we're basically all [1] addicted to smartphones, so we basically all [1] advocated for this. After all, to admit it was a problem for our kids, we'd have to also admit it could be a problem for ourselves.

Even I find myself holding onto my phone during most of the day when not on my computer, I don't even know why. It's an incredibly addictive piece of technology.

[1] - to a first order of approximation, yes I know you're the exception

benchly an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What's missing from the initial comparison is the fact that smartphones opened up all sorts of conveniences, which is partly what makes them so addictive. Rock music, D&D, etc, these other things that were crusaded against offered no convenience for all, so a conservative mind saw no value in it and attacked it as something that warps or rots young brains. Smartphones obviously do that and worse, but because they offer all sorts of helpful tools in our daily lives, we let it slide.

When I was in high school in the 90's, the famed Texas Instruments calculators were often banned in some maths classes because, as was said at the time, we were "not going to be walking around with a computer in our pockets all the time," so we needed to learn to do the work. By the time my younger brother passed through the same classes, they were required to have a graphing calculator because it actually helped kids complete the work. And play Dope Wars.

While we do tend to overreact to new tech, ways of thinking, games, music, etc, there's something inherently oily and snakelike about a thing that brings convenience to our lives the way smartphones or cell phones did. They slip in, comfortably at times, settling into our habits and routines while simultaneously altering them. We end up manipulated by it and before we know it, we can't set it down. In the case of smartphones, our data became the commodity, a mere decade or two after we were worried about tracking devices in cars or phone lines being tapped. But the smartphones kept delivering on their promises, which kept us hooked.

As someone who recovering from alcoholism, I struggle to call our love of smartphones an addiction, but if it helps people be aware of the dangers, by all means, use the term. To me, the problem of smartphones is manipulation at the deepest cognitive levels. We started offloading some thinking to them and who could blame us? We had the store of human knowledge in our pockets! We could play a game instead of sitting idle on the train, gamble with online casinos to try and win some extra cash that week, keep up with the Joneses on Facebook or get into a heated debate on Twitter during our lunch break, check banking, stocks and eBay sales, etc. We no longer had to carry a separate device to photograph or record the moment. The list goes on and on. But in the end, it altered our behavior just enough that we allow ourselves to be controlled by it, monitored by it, and bought and sold by it.

nandomrumber 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Did we ever allow the students to smoke in the classroom?

deaux an hour ago | parent | next [-]

We allowed teachers to smoke in the classroom, so in some sense..

lobf 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We allowed it in designated areas outside the classroom between classes…

DavidPiper 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hey, we must have been in high school at the same time. I saw the same thing going through my final years. But when I went back to visit the school a few years after I left... Things were very different.

I'd say there was definitely a grace period (roughly iPhone -> iPhone 4 maybe?) where device addiction wasn't yet normalised, and the real world hadn't ceded control yet. Not sure what happened at the school level after that, but somewhere along the way phones (devices as they were called then) everywhere all the time became very normal.

pessimizer 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Upper-middle class parents addicted to constant communication with their children started complaining about their kid's not being allowed to carry their phones, nearly at the level of implying it was a human rights violation. They combined this with worries about school shootings (that cellphones haven't ever helped with to my knowledge, unless having live recordings of children being murdered is help.)

After they got it, it was instantly allowed everywhere. It was another result of the "activism" of the same suburban let me speak to your manager class that has been ruining everything for the past 20 years.

edit: A lot of parents are constantly texting back and forth with their kids all day. It's basically their social media, especially if they don't have any friends, and I bet in plenty of cases a huge burden to the children.

thelock85 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This.

Schools are not employers that can implement take it or leave it policies. You need coordination and agreement between school leadership, district leadership, staff, and most critically parents to put your foot down on anything while also working to ensure basic safety and decent academic outcomes.

Now that the ills of social media and screen time are mainstream knowledge, it’s easier to make a common sense argument without much pushback.

p00dles 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ugh this is so tragic but I think correct

paulddraper 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Agreed.

There existed a period of time where handheld communication devices existed and were banned.

Sometime later, someone somewhere made a conscious choice to change policy. It didn’t just happen.

therein 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> someone somewhere

Must have been a powerful person.

obscurette 4 hours ago | parent [-]

They were. I was there in edu conferences, training sessions and other events years ago and could observe all this massive FUD which appeared – "smartphones are the future", "all communication will be in social media in the future", "books will not matter", "privacy will not matter", "if we ban smartphones, we will handicap our children" etc. People didn't know better and there was genuine fear in education. Or actually, it's still very much there.

arianjm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A big difference with your examples is that basically every adult was already using a smartphone. So adults don't just jump to conclusions that it's evil. It's more like... "Smartphones are useful"

immibis 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do we say it was rapid? When I grew up, cellphones (then mostly Nokia-shaped and the cool ones were flip phones) were always banned in school. If they weren't banned recently, then that was a reversal of a previously existing norm.

dghlsakjg 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sports gambling is astoundingly popular for teen boys. Already the prevalence of zero sum games like crypto and day trading was getting to be too trendy for teenagers, and this shit just supercharges it.

fn-mote 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> prevalence of zero sum games like crypto and day trading

Calling day trading “zero sum” seems like a huge stretch. To get the sum to be zero you need to include everyone involved in the market: institutional investors, hedge funds, etc. Somewhere between 87 and 95 percent of day traders lose money.

SchemaLoad 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's so many of these absurd "investing" trends where financially illiterate people are getting tricked in to buying in to schemes where the only way to win is to be one of the insiders. Or more recently, the Counter Strike skin "investing" where a single change from a company can wipe out all of your investment.

Had you bought actual regulated shares you could sue the company for deliberately crashing the value. But since video game skins are not a real investment. You have no protections at all.

8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
Melatonic 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it will eventually settle into a net positive - we're just in the Wild West of smartphones still.

I try to use my phone less and less but as someone who loves photography the ability to take a raw photo and edit on my phone is amazing.

SchemaLoad 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it won't automatically settle in a good state. We need to actively work towards it. Phones obviously have many useful and beneficial functions, photography, phone calls, etc. It's the engagement hacking from social media primarily which has broken society.

echelon 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But we have just encountered one of the rare times where something new actually was harmful.

Next let's ban kids from social media.

Or better yet, let's tax social media as a negative externality. Anything with an algorithmic feed, engagement algorithm, commenting/voting/banning, all hooked up to advertising needs to pay to fix the harm it's causing.

They're about as bad as nicotine and lung cancer. They've taken people hostage and turned society against itself.

> I think chatbots and AR glasses are going to supercharge these social problems at a rate much faster than phones and facebook ever could.

Chatbots aren't smart and AR glasses are dorky. They're going to remain niche for quite some time.

iPhone immediately caught on like wild fire. You can tell those other two don't have the same spark. I'm not saying there won't be users, but it's a much smaller population.

drivebyhooting 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree but you have to tone down the rhetoric otherwise you won’t persuade anyone who isn’t already convinced.

It’s telling that none of the tech CEOs allow their children to use their wares.

JuniperMesos an hour ago | parent [-]

> It’s telling that none of the tech CEOs allow their children to use their wares.

This is way too general a claim to be plausibly true, or verifiable even if somehow it was true. There's a lot of tech CEOs, running companies doing lots of different things in the world of computer technology, with lots of different family situations. They do not all have the same philosophy of how to raise their children, that they have publicly and truthfully talked about. Even if you're just talking about, say, Mark Zuckerberg specifically, who I know has mentioned some things publicly about his approach to raising his relatively-young kids, I don't think he claims that he blanket-disallows his kids from using every Meta product. And if he did, why would he say that publicly? Or maybe he did do that at one point when his kids were younger but then they complained a lot about this parental restriction and eventually he relented without happening to inform the world on a podcast that he's now making a slightly different decision in his private life.

I also don't think that any parent's decision about what kinds of computer technology use to allow or forbid for their children should be primarily based on what tech CEOs do with their own kids (and of course, really, what they heard tech CEOs somewhere without actually being able to verify this unless they happen to be close personal friends of a tech CEO).

someNameIG 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Next let's ban kids from social media.

We are here in Australia from the 10th December this year.

SchemaLoad 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm interested to see where this goes. I don't like how it's likely reducing privacy the internet. But social media is obviously a threat so serious that it might be worth the costs.

I've also been thinking that perhaps social media platforms should start displaying some kind of indicator when a poster is from out of your country. So when foreign troll farms start political posting you can see more clearly they aren't legitimate. I suspect that social media is largely to blame for the insane politics of the world right now.

immibis 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

They didn't have to implement it in a way where everyone has to upload their ID - there are other ways they could have done it. But Australia seems to love being a total surveillance state.

defrost 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

> They didn't have to implement it in a way where everyone has to upload their ID

They didn't and they haven't.

It's more nudge nudge wink wink age restriction theatre than 1984 total surveillance.

The onus is on platforms (Facebook, Youtube, et al) to adhere to the request to restrict minors.

https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/soci...

https://theconversation.com/details-on-how-australias-social...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-30/teen-social-media-ban...

iknowstuff 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

ChatGPT "caught on fire" faster than iPhones.

Dusseldorf 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It absolutely did not. ChatGPT is free to use and most people I know have barely engaged with it beyond a few queries once or twice to try it.

When the iPhone came out, nearly everyone I knew dumped hundreds of dollars to get one (or a droid) within 2 years.

oarsinsync an hour ago | parent | next [-]

https://futurism.com/openai-use-cheating-homework

Between your comments, and the report above, I suspect you, and most people you know, aren't students.

bdangubic 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“most people I know” argument always wins :)

most people I know spend $500+/month and use ai 8-10/hrs per day

lukan 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"and most people I know have barely engaged with it beyond a few queries once or twice to try it."

Have you recently spoken with the younger generation still in school?

I doubt you find many there who just "have barely engaged with it". It is just too useful for all the generic school stuff, homework, assignments, etc.

hunter-gatherer 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Agree. The conversation behind "adoption" was totally different as well. I was a young Army private when the first iPhone was announced. Before that I remember the iPod touch and other MP3 players beingthe rage in the gym and what not. I distinctly remember in the gym we were talking about the iPhone, my friend had an iPod touch and we took turns holding it up to our faces like a phone, and sort of saying "weird, but yeah, this would work".

Point being, when smart phones came out it there was anticipation of what it might be, sort of like a game console. ChatGPT et al was sort of sudden, and the use case is pretty one dimensional, and for average people, less exciting. It is basically a work-slop emitter, and _most people I know_ seem to agree with that.

iknowstuff 2 hours ago | parent [-]

the ipod touch was released after the iphone fyi

echelon 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I assumed the OP meant chat agents like Character.ai, not ChatGPT.

thatfrenchguy 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, "cigarettes are the devil", especially for teenagers also have stuck.

mjbale116 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Here's a couple of arguments I had to deal with whilst expressing my support for electronics ban at schools including a blanket social media ban:

1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best."

2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn."

3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes."

All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought.

ForgetItJake 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought.

I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?

mjbale116 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?

Indeed you don't; let me help you out then:

Arguments must be made in good faith; and when you hear anyone saying anything I mentioned above it is immediately obvious that they are not arguing in good faith.

If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed.

If anyone considers the above arguments valid and worthy of discussion, they need to exempt themselves from this discourse.

ForgetItJake 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can't just declare any opposition to your point of view as being in bad faith. (which is ironically in bad faith)

> If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed.

I hope you're trolling, because if not...

Jensson 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you really think that people can't come up with such arguments on their own? People aren't very unique, lots of people independently come up with very similar stupid arguments.

matthewmacleod 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed you don't

It seems that they do indeed see what you’re saying…

immibis 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

You have to look beneath what people say, and consider what they think. The quoted arguments are quite clearly nonsense and must be rationalisations.

harvey9 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Forbidding things doesn't work. Not for kids and not for adults. Hence speakeasys and the end of prohibition, or the war on drugs (which was won by drugs).

deaux an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In pretty much all countries that instituted heavy restrictions on smoking, e.g. banning smoking from restaurants, you can see an accelerated drop in number of smokers the years after that ban regardless of changes in education. This is particularly easy to verify because it has been done in many countries but all at fairly different points in time. Some did it decades ago, some have done it recently, there are still countries where it's allowed.

Forbidding things works very well most of the time. There are exceptions, but as a rule, it works.

f33d5173 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Forbidding things works. People drank less during prohibition, and they do less drugs than they would were they legalized. Hence there is no serious proposal to legalize most hard drugs

1659447091 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school. That time period is probably more important than any of the classes themselves.

I was trying to relate, and thinking until around 7th grade school lunch was a pretty awful lonely experience. But then remembered 2nd/3rd year of middle school finding the other outcast that somehow came together as our own little group of enterprising odd-balls.

We would buy large packs of gum (we sold for $.10-$.25 a piece), champion-caliber pencils (we tested a bunch playing a lot of pencil-break[0], sold for $.50-$1+), ping-pong balls/paddles (we had raggedy ping-pong tables near the food-court for before/after school and lunch that the cool kids didn't use so eventually other kids would rent/trade-for balls/paddles from us once we started playing) etc.

I think the biggest thing we did was start and run table/paper-football[1] games/tournaments; sometimes offering our perfectly-folded-winning paper-footballs or champion-level pencils or packs of gum, to make it exciting.

First we used the table we sat at for lunch, then noticing how shunned the un-cool ping-pong tables were, we turned them into paper-football fields (the green colour and white border lines made it that much more awesome as a paper-football field). We started playing before/after school and during lunch. We started doing ping-pong games too in one of the 3 time slots -- I think before school but maybe lunch I forget. But, I mean, this was Texas -- football is football -- we started drawing crowds and people were mixing outside their cliques wanting to get in on playing games (note: these were latchkey kid days in the south, the main groups looked like something out of prison movies; but we were a mixed sort of popular-group rejects, male & female)

Anyway, I would have to agree it was an important time for the foundation of my basic social skill set (never thought of it that way before). As much as I value that time and experience -- to be fair -- these kids are figuring it out in a different way for the world they live in. I've chalked up my dislike of watching my siblings kids being perfectly content to not get up from the couch/phone for hours at a time, as me being old.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_fighting

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_football

khannn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

WHOA! Classroom learning is fundamental. As a public school survivor, I learned more on my own than in any classroom.

bogwog 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder how long until they do the same to AI in schools?

fn-mote 9 hours ago | parent [-]

How in the world would you keep AI out of schools?

Ok, turn off the internet. And ban the cell phones.

I suppose a district could block the known AI providers, so kids could only use AI at home. I’m very skeptical this would eliminate the negatives.

On the contrary, every administrator I know of is gung-ho about the coming improvements in education driven by AI. (There certainly are SOME, but it comes with minuses.)

dingnuts 7 hours ago | parent [-]

most instruction can and should be done without computers. and ban cell phones.

falkensmaize 7 hours ago | parent [-]

This 1000%. When my wife was a teacher she would often comment on what a huge distraction chromebooks and tablets were. Most of the things being learned through high school do not require a computer and do not benefit from them. Added to that, having kids spend 40 hours a week away from screens is a huge bonus.

davnicwil 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the operative word here is 'let'.

The actual levers of control available to those in charge in schools are limited, in the end.

The rules that exist are routinely broken and can only be enforced selectively. Many of the rules are unpolicable frankly and are only kept to or only marginally broken as a matter of social norms, and understanding so there is not total choas. An equilbrium is found.

With phones there's such social pressure to allow their use, including from forces external to the school, that there was never possibly a hope of the equilibrium immediately settling at phones being banned.

It was always going to creep to the current status quo. Again this would have been true even if a rule were ostensibly set.

Society is learning, slowly, that this isn't ideal, and the pendulum seems to be swinging back. It may settle at phones being completely banned in schools, but in practice this will also obviously be moderately chipped away at all the time in various surprising and unsurprising ways. Especially as the hardware itself evolves.

zdragnar 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> With phones there's such social pressure to allow their use, including from forces external to the school, that there was never possibly a hope of the equilibrium immediately settling at phones being banned.

Phones, and electronic devices in general, were always banned. What changed was schools started allowing them.

I was in high school right when some kids first started getting (dumb) cell phones. MP3 players were still new, CD players were not uncommon, and ALL of them were banned from being outside of your locker or backpack. If a teacher saw one, it was gone until the end of the day. Period.

Teachers didn't need to bear the brunt of angry parents, it wasn't their call to make. That belonged to the school administrator, who merely needed to say "tough shit". Somehow, the adult children still won anyway.

vkou 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I mean they talk about a lunch room "quiet enough to hear a pin drop"??

Look, I think that phones and computers don't belong in classrooms, but instead of assuming that the world has gone that mad, you should probably assume that whomever wrote those words has a tenuous relationship with honesty.

mensetmanusman 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everyone went all in on tech during Covid. NYC schools were one of the slowest to recover and are still dealing with the knock on effects.

HeinzStuckeIt 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I think I learned half my basic social skills from lunch rooms in school

What a lot of people learn from lunch rooms is not a happy social lesson. It’s who is allowed to sit where, and who is outcast from a table. It’s the shit teenagers lower on the social hierarchy have to take daily from teenagers who are higher, even if they are allowed to sit at the same table. High school is widely remembered as a brutal rite of passage, and lunch rooms are as much a part of that as any other space. If everyone was so absorbed in their phones, that may have been a benefit for social harmony and escaping real-life bullying and shaming.

JuniperMesos 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The social lessons people learn from their high school experience vary wildly. I have read many accounts of people who had bad experiences like this when they were in high school, and also many accounts of people who didn't have experiences like this. When I think about how the people I know have described their high school experiences, I can also think of a wide range of things. It's certainly not what my high school social experience was like - there were things I disliked about it, but mostly related to highly-idiosyncratic details of my personality. Describing it as a brutal rite of passage with some kind of global social hierarchy involving who got to sit at which lunch table rings very false to me.

TheOtherHobbes 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The bullying is still there, it's just moved online. If anything it's easier for the perpetrators, because they can hide behind anonymity, or create humiliating deepfakes - and so on.

The problem isn't phones, it's the addictivisation of social media and gaming. Being able to stay in touch with friends and family is potentially a good thing.

But it's currently implemented as a hook for psychological and chemical addiction, so that user attention can be sold to advertisers.

That is a problem, and I think we're starting to see a movement which will eventually end with these platforms being banned, or strictly regulated at the very least.

It's basically casino psychology applied to all social interactions. That is clearly not a good or healthy thing.

SchemaLoad 6 hours ago | parent [-]

What seems likely is addiction mechanisms and social media will end up banned for kids. Loot boxes and daily login rewards banned from games, etc. Proof of age will be required for social media.

justonceokay 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Learning where you fit in the social hierarchy and attempting to navigate that hierarchy is more important than anything you’ll learn in math class. Even if it is embarrassing. It’s not like you graduate high school and then the bullies go away.

throwaway150 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's quite a claim. I'm not sure I buy it. We never had all this lunchroom social drama growing up, and my old mates and I seem to be doing just fine.

Maybe you feel that navigating social hierarchy is more important than anything in math is because that's the kind of culture you happened to grow up in, not because it's truly more important?

HollowVoice 9 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

squigz 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Generally, once you leave high school, you have a lot more choice in when/where you are forced to interact with bullies.

ryandrake 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The exception being work, where a lot of people seem like they never left high school. Everywhere I've worked had the social totem pole, the cliques, the politics, the in-crowd and out-crowds. One place I worked was almost exactly like the movie Mean Girls. Lots of people just don't grow out of it.

lmm 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Worst case you can switch jobs. It's not easy, but it's a lot easier than switching schools.

LtWorf 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Also, bullying in school has no consequences, but outside it might have some.

squigz 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Bullying in school absolutely has consequences, and they're mostly going to be much farther-reaching than those suffered as an adult - getting messed up psychologically is more impactful as a kid, not to mention any physical toll it takes, or the impact of it on one's education.

ironSkillet 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the user means that bullies in school face little consequences, but a bully at work may get called by HR and potentially disciplined.

squigz 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh fair enough. My apologies Mr Worf. I don't fully agree - plenty of shitty behavior gets ignored (or even encouraged) even in a workplace - but there's definitely some truth here.

LtWorf 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No consequence for the bully I mean.

badc0ffee 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I always hear this from Americans. My experience in Canada is that the bullying and shaming was limited to junior high (grade 7-9 in my province). Maybe my high school was just too large for any of that nonsense? Or maybe the culture is different - I couldn't have told you who was on the football team, and there was no prom.

All my friends were nerds, but at the same time I didn't feel like there was some brutal social order hanging over me like I did in jr high.

fyrn_ 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I think age cohortand school makes a difference. Personally I had a perfectly fine time in highschool, most people just got along. Same problems as other posters though, it's just anecdote, and a heavily biased sampling (pretty decent chunk of CS people with poor social skills)

supportengineer 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

PE class being the other one where bullies thrive, and prey on the sensitive, intelligent, thoughtful kids. The coaches look the other way because they want the "win".

psunavy03 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Both of these are different failure modes of adults to parent and/or mentor children. Just because A and B are both bad does not mean C is not a potentially better place to be. Just because lazy teachers and staffers tell kids "you have to learn to fight your own battles" does not make social media A-OK.

serf 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>What a lot of people learn from lunch rooms is not a happy social lesson.

valuable lessons don't necessarily overlap with happy.

a kid leaves the gate open until his dog is ran over, it doesn't happen again after that with the new dog.

virgil_disgr4ce 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Avoidance: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems

woodpanel 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The point you're making is important and I can already see how many, once years out of school, are able to re-frame their memories into something that bullying wasn't so bad and it's actually a social good, etc. It's as if the return-to-office-policies bringing back bullying/sexual harrassement to one's work environment would be hailed as a chance to improve one's social skills. Ridiculous.

I do think though that it's worth discerning here: We don't need to accept a world in which we have to decide between apathetic children stuck to tiny screens and daily traumas. Both things are evil, and in both cases it's a testament to lack of care our education systems have for us/children.

LtWorf 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think they're reframing. They weren't bullied or were the bullies themselves.

koolba 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Or there simply weren’t any bullies.

Not everybody’s childhood played out like Lord of the Flies.

SR2Z 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Asociality is not the same thing as social harmony. It's not better for children if their shithead peers are replaced with smartphones.

The unfortunate truth is that cliquey behavior and bullying are some of things that children have to be exposed to - you won't come out of school as a fully-capable human being unless you've spent the last several years being exposed to a ton of different adult emotions.

HeinzStuckeIt 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That high school is necessarily a place of cliquey behavior and bullying, and that kids may even benefit from it, is not a universal thing. In some countries, viewers of imported American TV shows are baffled by that depiction of high school, because in their high schools there aren’t such hard knocks.

tuckerman 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with you, American schools seem particularly bad at breeding these sorts of unhealthy dynamics, and we shouldn't accept it as normal. But even in a better environment, unstructured social interaction with peers still seems like a useful part of growing up/socialization and shouldn't be replaced with kids sucked into their phones.

LtWorf 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think USA does everything later than in other countries.

So I think by the time I got to high school we were too mature for the kind of bullying you see in USA films, but that did happen earlier.

squigz 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It might be better if those shithead peers are replaced with supportive peers who happen to be elsewhere in the world.

SR2Z 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I've had plenty of friends I've only known through the internet and a chat room. It's not the same as being in-person - I don't see a way to reliably turn out healthy adults unless kids talk to each other.

9 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
Fnoord 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

90's high schooler here. Oh yeah, those basic social skills at lunchrooms at school.

Sitting in noisy lunchroom isn't fun if you have autism. Walkman/disc man was my fav (you know, that thing I used while on the bus, so no I didn't talk much there to others either). Too bad we didn't have noise-cancelling headset back then. Back to lunchroom. Went for a drink while leaving your school bag? Your scientific calculator got reset by one of the bullies. Good luck getting it ready again for math/physics/chemistry/biology class test. But I usually just lunched elsewhere anyway, since I wasn't allowed in the cool kids group, and I ended up finding solace in that. So where did I end up? In the multimedia library! 20 or so PCs which you could use for, eh... 'homework.' At one point I found out you could just edit your student number in HTML, so once I figured the student number of a bully I signed him up to study in one the silence rooms for a week. When he found out I did that, he did the same to me, but -unlike him- I was cool with that. As for that library: other, more smarter kids than me, went to sit separate to study during break. And during lunch break there were people bored, shooting with elastics, yelling, running, bullying. Book reading at school? Didn't happen much during lunch breaks. Some studying, sure. That it was so awesome before the smartphone time, is a nostalgia myth.

FTA:

> The faculty donated board games to help ease kids into the phone-free era. Student volunteers oversaw a table stacked with games: checkers, chess, Yahtzee, Scrabble, Clue, Life and Trivial Pursuit. For many of the kids, it was their first time playing the games, and they said they were enjoying it.

Oh, yeah. I played MtG back in those days but was called a 'nerd' for that, and surprisingly nobody in my class (gymnasium; highest education level on high school) would also play it. At times, I kind of enjoyed something like Black Lady and Rikken, but Poker just bored me, and I didn't like the play for money (it was officially forbidden, but you know how that goes).

> Ko said other analog activities have also made a comeback, including cards, hangman, tic-tac-toe and Polaroid cameras. “There are just a lot of memories that we make throughout high school that we want to capture,” she said. “I actually have a lot of Polaroids on my wall.”

Funny how there's still a need to make photo's. That is one thing I hate about smartphones. That excessive need to photograph everything these days.

Now, about the subject. I don't think it has to be 'all' or 'nothing'. It wasn't 'nothing' back in the days (as I already wrote above, we just consolidated a lot of devices), it wasn't perfect back in the days either.

bongodongobob 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's fear mongering bullshit. "WHAT UF THERE EMERGENCY". Every room has a phone and a teacher with a phone. Absolute bullshit post Columbine 9/11 fear based nonsense.

catlover76 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]