An undeclared generational war is the contact of children with technology in recent years with a prior unequal background as children's negotiation ability is mainly intuitive and in a possible parent-child conflict the right is the privilege of the adult due to experience. There are very few cases where a parent accepts the overuse of technology by their minor child.
The first black point of the problem is that the definition of technology in this context is itself vague and chaotic and needs investigation. Depending on the age and the field of use, what is defined as technology differs. In addition, differentiation is also observed over time, as technology evolves exponentially. So two years ago for example the same age group interacted quite differently compared to the same age group today. The complexity of the condition requires finding the edge of the thread and a radical re-evaluation. It is one of those cases where the negative reputation of the treaty takes away from the spontaneous disposition for research. If someone were to ask you how many anti-technology articles you've read, you'd surely answer that there are more than those praising it.
Most research on video game use has been conducted on teenagers or young adults and is mostly negative. Rather more specifically, negative studies are more easily disseminated. A very large study was conducted by Columbia University. In this study, children aged 6 to 11 years were examined (Kovess-Masfety, 2016). In this survey 3195 children and their parents estimated the average number of hours of video game use per week. Parents and teachers answered a series of questionnaires concerning the children's social and emotional functioning. In this research, it was observed that children who played more than 5 hours a week of video games had higher academic achievements and better intellectual activity than children who did not play video games at all. It is true that we can hardly accept that video games have beneficial effects on the development of children and adolescents. Not accepting their positive side falls under the general aphorism and is not connected to critical thinking and evaluation.
It all boils down to the fact that the "elephant in the room" has always been the assimilation of new technologies and never the technology itself.
So let's first focus on the end of the thread, which in our case is the word reality. And this is because as technology evolves, it is capable of creating an artificial environment of reality. While interacting with her it is like running a simulation or even a simulation at a higher level. Virtual friends in the case of social networks, moments of indescribable instant emotional euphoria through funny and quick videos, context of active action through videogames as well as artificial cooperation and socialization through interaction with other players. Each age group is therefore offered the possibility of creating an artificial world. So time to come back to "real reality" and reassess.
If someone was satisfied with the reality offered to them they would be more likely to notice it, commit to it and improve it rather than turn their back on it and start building their own from scratch. All of the above testifies that the minor does not move away from his needs but apparently transfers them to an environment with less adult control. And as he builds his own world, he also has to deal with his order, which prompts him to move away from technology. A child is driven to tear down a world that in his own eyes is a way out.
Reality is mainly shaped by the adult. In a role play the adult is the host of life and the child appears as the guest at least initially. In such a context the dialogue between them about whether the world formed by the first is ideal is clearly against him, because the world is not and perhaps never was ideal. From a social point of view, the cases of adults who will ask themselves "what world have I built for my child?" are in the minority. while the majority becomes critical from the outset for the tendency to isolate the minor in his own world and abhor the real environment. It is this tendency of the adult not to accept the black spots of reality that angers the child and makes him turn his back. In a second year, it is the judgmental attitude of the adult that focuses only on targeting the child for his choice that in a second year creates self-destructive tendencies in the child, who even knowing that he is losing by his choice, obstinately refuses to return.
The magic words are receptivity and acceptance. Receptivity of the adult to re-evaluate the conditions he formed – and here let's not forget that the adult himself was once the child and was in the other position in advance – and the acceptance that the child has needs that are not met in the reality he found. And that's where fruitful dialogue and interaction can prevent the two above from drifting off as opposite electric charges and foster a cooperative framework that will improve both.
Creative solutions are always the ray of light in the dark. It is the adult's responsibility to create alternative conditions in the child's environment for real play. Once the child feels dominant in a new environment that is offered to him, he will automatically prefer the new condition, significantly limiting the interaction with the virtual world. And this is because in the new "real reality" it will make use of all the senses now, physical movement as well as real social interaction. The human brain is constantly developing and the existence of stimuli contributes to this. The more stimuli, the more intense the interaction with the environment and the more perfect the intellectual development. Therefore, offering the child multiple natural stimuli leads to the setting aside of the artificial by him.
In conclusion, behind the use of technology by children and the substitution of many and varied actions is the absence of options on the one hand and on the other the power of technology due to its structure for further development of the intellect. To almost obsess over and target technology as the cause of child destruction is beyond self-serving and seeing the tree rather than the forest. The abuse of technology and the distorted use does not blame the law-abiding evolution of the human species itself but the lack of education and the difficulty of assimilating it.
*Frontpage picture: flickr