Tracy Dennis Tiwary, who calls herself an "anxiety researcher," is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Hunter College, The City University of New York. Tiwary is also the co-founder of Arcade Therapeutics, which "uses breakthrough neuroscientific research to improve mental health through casual, accessible mobile games."
Jonathan Haidt does not (as far as I can tell) utilize mobile games in his own work. Haidt is an American social psychologist who is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business. According to Wikipedia, Haidt's main areas of study are the psychology of morality and moral emotions. He has recently published a new book, The Anxious Generation: How The Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.
"Anxiety" is the topic that has brought Tiwary and Haidt together in the April 21, 2024, edition of The New York Times Book Review. A "Q&A" with Haidt, commenting on his book, appeared in the Book Review on that date. On a facing page, Tiwary's review of Haidt's book, "The Rise of the Machines," evaluated Haidt's concerns. Incidentally, the title I just provided is the hardcopy version of the title of Tiwary's review. Online, her title is this: "Coddling Plus Devices? Unequivocal Disaster for Our Kids." Tiwary's review, online, has the following subhead: "In The Anxious Generation, Jonathan Haidt says we’re failing children — and takes a firm stand against tech."
As might be expected from someone who uses "mobile games" in her medical practice, Tiwary is not persuaded that "tech" is causing us to fail children. As between "coddling" and "devices," it looks to me like Tiwary is thinking that "coddling" is doing the most damage. Here are the last words in what Tiwary has to say about Haidt in her review:
Haidt writes, “what is happening to us? How is technology changing us?” His answer: “The phone-based life produces spiritual degradation, not just in adolescents, but in all of us.” In other words: Choose human purity and sanctity over the repugnant forces of technology. This dialectic is compelling, but the moral matrix of the problem — and the scientific foundations — are more complex.Yes, digital absolutism might convince policymakers to change laws and increase regulation. It might be a wake-up call for some parents. But it also might backfire, plunging us into defense mode and blocking our path of discovery toward healthy and empowered digital citizenship (emphasis added).
Can a "healthy" and "empowered" citizenship be "digital"? If you think it can, give a point or two to Tiwary. But maybe citizenship, in the end, can't be "digital," and particularly not if you want citizenship to be "healthy" and "empowered." If you believe that there is, actually, a "real world," and that when we enter the "digital world" (completely controlled by massive corporations by the way) we are actually "somewhere else," then I'd say let's start paying some attention to Haidt's concerns. I think he is right that "tech" (like "artificial" intelligence) is not, in the end, our actual friend.
Since I was reading the April 15, 2024, edition of The New Yorker magazine just before dealing with Haidt and Tiwary, I am appending the following cartoon, which comes from that issue. I mentioned "artificial intelligence," and not in a positive way, in my remarks above. This cartoon is consistent with my own thoughts about how "tech" relates to "intelligence."
Think about it! Maybe you might start agreeing with me that Haidt has the better argument, and that if we want a "healthy" and "empowered" citizenship, we need to get together with our friends, in the "real world," and start exercising our collective power.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!