The Habit Revolution

The Habit Revolution – Dr Gina Cleo

The Habit Revolution is a science-backed approach to how habits are formed, how less desirable habits can be changed and how positive habits can be reinforced. 

The book summary talks about it being ‘Beyond Atomic Habits’. Atomic Habits is a bit more case-study based. The Habit Revolution is more science-based. It is a deeper-dive version of how to change habitual behaviour that takes you into the how and why – helping to reduce the blame and guilt that comes from unhealthy habitual behaviour and providing many more psychological and behavioural tools and techniques to help with positive change.

If you want advice on how to make tiny, manageable, realistic changes that compound into large life-changing habits and behaviour, this book really is a revolution.

Dr Gina Cleo has a number of videos that you can watch on her YouTube channel, which can be found here.

Below is her showreel that gives you a flavour of the information she reveals in the book.

About Dr Gina Cleo:

Dr Ceelo is a leading expert in habit change. You can read more about her and what she does on her website

Book Review Related Articles
CoaC intro zoom in 2

Introducing Confessions of a CyberPsychologist​

I’ve started a podcast, intending to interview as many CyberPsychology experts as are willing to get involved`.

The first expert interview has been recorded and should be posted soon.

This short video is a brief explanation of why I started Confessions of a CyberPsychologist.

In a nutshell: after a lot of writing articles and doing talks, several people have suggested I ought to start Podcasting.

I am not a journalist or a media personality by trade or training. I am a psychologist who used to do corporate marketing.

But as a few people have said to me (in one way or another), ‘it is better to share information and learn as you go, than wait to be perfect and for someone else to steal the show’.

I hope you will overlook the current not-so-professional nature of the videos. The quality should improve with time and practice.

So, here I am, sharing what I know, and interviewing other experts in CyberPsychology about what they know in the world of the human-technology intersection.

Hopefully, by joining me on this journey, we will both learn more about how our behaviour and psychology impact our technology use and how our technology use impacts our human behaviour and psychology – and what we can do to build a better relationship with our tech use and get back control of that relationship.

Because your digital health and wellbeing matters…

If you have any technology and human behaviour related questions, please feel free to get in touch. I will do my best to either answer your questions or find another expert who hopefully can. Use any of these options to send through your questions.

Email: podcasts@cybercology.com

Twitter: https://twitter.com/cybercology1

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cybercology/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cybercology_digital_health/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cybercologydigitalhealth/

Welcome to Confessions of a CyberPsychologist.

ADHD and Gaming

The link between ADHD and Online Addictions

Does spending lots of time online cause ADHD?

Directly. It seems not.

Spending time on digital devices does reduce your ability to focus and concentrate and excessive use can cause symptoms similar to those displayed with ADHD, but using a device will not ‘give you’ ADHD.  

Indirectly. It seems to. 

According to Gabor Mate, ADHD is a coping mechanism that children develop when there is limited connection with their primary caregiver does not, or is not able to, respond to their immediate need for care, reassurance and comfort. 

If a child does not receive an appropriate level of comfort, eye contact and their basic needs met, the child turns their focus inwards to achieve the comfort they need. It is this inward focusing that wires the brain in a non-neuro-typical way. 

Historically, it was those parents who were overly stressed, emotionally overburdened or in a state of survival that did not give them the emotional and mental resources to extend the care and 1-2-1 attention a young child needs to feel secure and safe in the world. 

However, since the launch of the smartphone, how many parents of young children do you see staring at their mobile screens while their young children are seeking or needing their attention? 

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of children who are being diagnosed with ADHD, especially since the beginning of 2020. Is it just that we have more awareness of the condition and therefore a better ability to spot and diagnose it? OR are there simply more care-givers who are more distracted than ever before? 

Does ADHD predispose you to addictions?

Directly, it does seem to.

Those with ADHD have lower overall levels of Dopamine – the anticipation-feel-good hormone. Spending time online including scrolling through social media, gaming, gambling or pornography all contribute to regular, tiny bursts of Dopamine into the system.  

In their book ADHD 2.0, Dr Hallowell and Dr Ratey state that, ‘addiction of all kinds are five to ten times more common in people who have ADHD than in the general population.’  They talk about an itch that can only be scratched in certain ways. From a positive perspective, this leads to ‘adaptive, worthwhile and sustainable’ creativity, but can also lead to ‘maladaptive and destructive’ behaviour and addictions. 

There are socially acceptable forms of addiction and socially unacceptable forms of addiction. Online addictions vary by category on the spectrum from social media scrolling to gaming, gambling and pornography (to name a few).

All are driven by the same Dopamine itch that needs scratching (to a greater or lesser degree).

So what can we do about it?

If you have been diagnosed with ADHD or suspect you may have ADHD, here are a few things you can try:

  • Find a coach or therapist who works with adults who have ADHD to help you find different ways to manage the itch and find more creative outlets to express and capitalise on your inherent natural talents. 
  • Experiment with several external ‘real world’ activities that will help you build a local community and get you exercising.  Increasing your coordination and creating muscle movement is shown to help a number of those diagnosed with ADHD.
  • Actively seek to build stronger in-person relationships. Those who have ADHD thrive better in strong communities and have those around them who love, protect and care for them.
  • Go on a digital diet. Work with others in your household to create tech house rules that purposefully limit the amount of time available to spend on digital devices. 
  • Delete the apps from your phone that are the hardest for you to resist. Having extra barriers in place that increase access friction to apps or websites, decreases the easy access to the mini-Dopamine hits. 

In the above video, Dr Gabor Mate talks about the conditions that impact the development of children that lead to ADHD (and impulse regulation circulation and capacity).

In the below videos, Dr Hallowell talks about changing the narrative from disability and disorder to a fascinating trait. In the book he wrote alongside Dr Ratey (ADHD 2.0), he talks about ADHD being a person’s superpower.

He views ADHD as having a racing car brain with bicycle breaks. A fabulous analogy that helps those with ADHD to find ways to maximise their superpower.

Related Articles
Dopamine Nation

Dopamine Nation – Anna Lembke

In her book, Dopamine Nation, Dr Anna Lembke explores how our dopamine system works and how, in our search for happiness and the pursuit of pleasure and quick fixes, we can unwittingly head into a state of chronic dopamine deficiency that drives and exacerbates our reliance on our ‘happiness fix’ that leads to addictive behaviours and substances.

She tells stories of both her own and her clients addictive behaviours, showcasing how this hedonic pursuit for moments of happiness can be the very thing that undoes us.

She then provides a 3-step process of how to emerge from this state, and clearly explains why they are the solution to our dopamine-deprived behaviours. These solutions are summed up in one of her talks as: 

  1. Abstain
  2. Maintain
  3. Seek our Pain

Summing up the third principle is: “The reason that we are all so miserable is that we are working so hard to avoid being miserable”. 

Underlying this is “The Plenty Paradox: Overabundance is itself a stressor caused by the mismatch between our primitive wiring and our modern dopamine-rich ecosystem”. 

The best way to capture the essence of her book is her own introduction to it – one of the best descriptions I’ve come across to clarify the dopamine indulgence of our current generations:

“This book is about pleasure, It’s also about pain. Most importantly, it’s about the relationship between pleasure and pain and how understanding that relationship has become essential for a life well lived. Why? Because we’ve transformed the world from a place of scarcity to a place of overwhelming abundance: drugs, food, news, gambling, shopping, gaming, texting, sexting, facebooking, Instagramming, YouTubing, Tweeting. The increased numbers and potency of highly rewarding stimuli today is staggering. The smartphone is the modern-day hypodermic needle delivering digital dopamine 24/7to a wired generation. If you haven’t met your drug of choice yet, it’s coming soon to a website near you. “

In the above video, Dr Lembke explains the role of dopamine as a motivational agent and the role it plays in addiction.

In the below video, she talks about the relationship dopamine plays in smartphone addiction – including why teenagers engage in and are impacted by social media. She talks about technology as being a ‘spectrum disorder’ and what that looks like. 

A small selection of additional videos and interviews by Dr Lembke on this subject can be viewed below. More can be found by searching for her on YouTube.

Cambridge Core provides a great summation of Dopamine Nation written by Amer Raheemullah. You can read it here. 

About Anna Lembke:

Anna Lembke is a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine and chief of the Stanford Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic.

You can read more about her at her website: https://www.annalembke.com

Other Book Reviews
Adult Online Gaming

Online Gaming – can we manage Pandora’s box?

What is Gaming Addiction Disorder?

There is an ongoing debate about the term ‘Gaming Addiction’ and whether or not online activities can be called an ‘Addiction’.

The WHO recognise it as a disorder and define it as: “a pattern of gaming behaviour (‘digital-gaming’ or ‘video-gaming’) characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.” This addiction doesn’t cover other online problematic behaviour. 

The DSM categorise it as a behavioural addiction ‘disorder’ – with at least 5 of the following behaviours/symptoms being displayed within a 12-month period:

  • Preoccupation with gaming
  • Withdrawal symptoms when gaming is taken away or not possible (sadness, anxiety, irritability)
  • Tolerance, the need to spend more time gaming to satisfy the urge
  • Inability to reduce playing, unsuccessful attempts to quit gaming
  • Giving up other activities, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities due to gaming
  • Continuing to game despite problems
  • Deceiving family members or others about the amount of time spent on gaming
  • The use of gaming to relieve negative moods, such as guilt or hopelessness
  • Risk, having jeopardized or lost a job or relationship due to gaming.

Some studies show that gaming is ok and positively influences those who play it. 

Games are social, help manage difficult situations, provide an escape, and improve specific social, strategic, spatial, and problem-solving skills. 

Some research studies showcase that there is limited negative impact around gaming and no link to other addictions.

But, when you consider that research studies are a ‘dipstick’ into people’s lives, take an average of a small sample of a population, and may not consider the social and behavioural consequences of the actions of the individual and those around them, how can we use these research outcomes as a guide to suggest to a parent that their child isn’t addicted, or to an HR department that their adult worker isn’t addicted to online gaming? The argument here is that because the behaviour does not fit the definition of an addiction, it therefore isn’t an addiction.

What are the characteristics of those who have been referred to the gaming clinic?t

In analysing the dynamics of the  clients who attend the National Centre for Gaming Disorders Clinic at the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, the team found that:

  • 61% are 13-18 years old
  • 24% are 19 – 25 years old
  • 8% are 26 – 35 years old
  • 7% are 35+ years old 
  • 89% are male

Watch the news piece around the clinic and the services they provide.

Those who struggle with online addictions are a minority of those who spend time on their phones and those who play online games. For those who do spend a problematic amount of time in online gaming: 

  • 1 in 5 have ADHD or other neuro-diverse characteristics
  • 1 in 8 have anxiety, OCD or another type of addiction
  • 77%  find that gaming disrupts schoolwork
  • 88% say gaming disrupts their sleep
  • 46% of clients become aggressive when they are forced to stop gaming 
  • 22% become violent when they are forced to stop gaming.

In this interview, Professor Henrietta Bowden Jones (who set up the NCGD clinic in 2019) talks about the work the team do at the clinic. She expresses their surprise at the interest they are already receiving – even while they are still relatively unknown.

In a 2013 TED Talk, Cam Adair describes his video addiction and gives some advice for parents.

He suggests that the reasons people play online games are: 

  1. Games are a temporary escape from reality
  2. Playing online multiplayer games are social
  3. Games provide a challenge that can be overcome and
  4. They provide constant measurable growth.
What can you do about gaming addiction for either yourself, your child or someone you love?

Cam suggests that it starts with parent’s boundaries and behaviour.

  • Children need interaction, not distraction with entertainment. I agree with this, children learn through observing social interactions and grown-up behaviour, not watching games to ‘teach them’ social interactions and grown-up behaviour. 
  • Games are played for specific reasons. Take the time to find out what the motivations are and find other ways to fill those needs
  • Don’t punish children for their gaming – come from a place of compassion and encouragement, not judgment. 

Additionally, the team at the NHS clinic suggests:

  • Using a weaning-off approach that involves agreement and cooperation from the addict – developing a co-constructed and collaborative solution approach
  • Box-breathing for calming down the emotions and urgest to game
  • Riding the wave
  • Setting up gaming boundaries – i.e. how much time is spent gaming.
We need similar regulations to what we see in gambling addiction?

Gaming companies use gambling-type behavioural strategies to encourage longer play times and earn their money. 

If we don’t allow children to engage in gambling activities – should we be allowing children to be exposed to the same techniques used in gambling?  

What do you think? 

What about the workplace?

Gaming addictions are not just a teen or young person’s behavioural issue. Although it does seem to be more prevalent amongst the young – mostly because they garner the greatest level of media attention and parental concern – some adults struggle just as much with gaming (and other online) addictions – to the extent that the behaviour regularly jeopardises their day-to-day job performance.

Although adult-based gaming tends to fall under the radar in an addiction context (such as gambling or substance addictions). Problematic gaming can become a substantial issue, especially when it comes to on-job performance, and being both present and productive during the working day.

I recently attended a webinar on gaming where one young professional, in an already time-demanding career, was spending around 30 hours a week gaming. Although this may have a limited impact on this person’s working life at a younger age, what are the longer-term consequences, especially as they age and have lower energy levels and longer general energy recovery times?

As managers and HR professionals, what would you do if someone at work is struggling with online or gaming addictions that is directly affecting their work?

  • Would this be handled in the same way as any other form of addiction or behavioural issue (e.g. gambling) that is affecting their ability to do their work?
  • Would you encourage them to get therapy?
  • Do you deal with the behavioural outcomes or do you look for the underlying causes of their online addictions?
  • Is it a dismissable or disciplinary offence?

In the same way that young people turn to gaming as a way to escape from the world, cope with issues outside of their control, or seek ways to socialise and belong, adults can use gaming to cope with their work-based and life-based stressors and as a way to escape and socialise. Sometimes the behaviours have a limited impact on their work and sometimes the impact is huge.

We all have our own form of coping and self-soothing to deal with work-based stress and anxiety.

  • Is online and gaming addiction the employer’s or employee’s issue?

  • Should we be including ‘gaming and online addictions’ as part of our ongoing conversations around general and Digital Mental Health and Wellness at work?

  • Should we help those struggling with online and gaming addictions with support programmes?

  • Do you include signs of gaming and online addictions as part of your workplace mental health first-aider training?

242A. Good or Bad Gadgets

Are phones and gadgets good or bad for you? Yes!

Experts regularly debate, agree and disagree about how good or bad digital technology (DigiTech) is for us – whether we are young, old, working or playing. Until we are further down the line in this great social experiment called Digital Technology and Social Media, the expert opinion (including mine) comes down to the individual expert bias and perspective.  

A recent Guardian article summarises the opinions gathered from a few expert interviews and showcases their divided opinions on how good or bad DigiTech is. We know both from a historical and an anecdotal perspective that the introduction of any form of technology changes us culturally and individually. DigiTech is no exception.

I think a better set of questions to ask is – How does using digital technology…:

1. Impact my mental and physical well-being?

2. Improve or add to my life goals?

3. Add to or take away from my ‘in-person’ community / relationship with others?

And probably the most important question of all is:

4. Do I feel like I’m in control of, or being controlled by, my DigiTech use?

If the answer to any of these is not what you’d like it to be, then maybe something needs to change. 

The greatest concern is around the impact on children. Research is increasingly revealing that children under 13 (and probably really children under 16) should be restricted in their use of DigiTech. If a phone is needed from a safety perspective, there are plenty of alternatives to a smartphone.

They are cognitively, emotionally, psychologically, socially, and developmentally too young. Ruth Guest from Sersha uses a great comparison of giving a child a smartphone being in the same category as giving a child a set of keys to your car

More than anything, the thing we have most lost out on, is human connectivity and the life benefits that come from a deep, relational, accountable, reliable community. This is where children and teens are losing out the most.

In a Netflix documentary called ‘Live to 100, Secrets of the Blue Zones‘, Dan Buettner looks at the key elements that promote longer life in pockets of areas where both men and women are living substantially longer and healthier lives than the average. In this series, and in his Ted Talk, he lists just a few key attributes that contribute to a longer life.

One of these is being actively involved and participating in an in-person community. International travel and leaving our communities in search of career and personal fulfilment have gone some way to weaken ties with those intimate relational communities. And we don’t always work hard enough to build a community in the place we find ourselves for work. 

Similarly, in her Ted Talk, Susan Pinker has come to a matching conclusion. It seems to be that having people around us that we can rely on in our physical space is an important element of longevity and a life well lived.

Granted, not all relationships are created equal, but if we are spending the majority of our lives creating (often international) digital connections with others, rather than investing in (local) in-person relationships we are losing out on a fundamental element of what it is to be human.

We are living with unprecedented levels of online connection, but physical ‘aloneness’ – resulting in a major loneliness epidemic.

They say that loneliness strips you of 7 years of your life. Being lonely is stressful. It’s hard work. It’s mentally exhausting. It’s soul-destroying. It is why solitary confinement is such a harsh form of punishment and being a social outcast is so emotionally and psychologically devastating. 

Even those who are introverts – who need time on their own to emotionally and mentally recover from the energy required to engage with others – still need regular social interactions. 

The thing is, in the same way that eating too much of the wrong type of food too often leads to progressive weight gain, leading to negative longer-term physical consequences, spending too much time engaging in online communities and not enough time in our off-line communities results in a negative longer-term emotional and social consequences.

If you can relate to this, below are a few suggested things to think through:

  • How strong are your current offline connections?
  • Who, in your social or family circle, could you call at any time and know they will physically be able to help you?
  • On a scale of 1 to 10, how lonely do you feel (with 10 being really lonely)?
  • If you wanted to spend more time with friends/family or meet new people, what could you do or where could you go that doesn’t involve using digital technology? 
  • What changes do you need to make to my DigiTech use to increase the amount of time you physically spend with others?
Related Articles
Social Media shopping

Social Media shopping capitalises on dopamine

An anecdotal account in an article in the Guardian showcases some actions a lot of us take when scrolling through social media – stopping at an advert and buying whatever it is that is on offer, being disappointed with the purchase when it arrives and heading off to the post-office to send it back.

The article suggests that the purchasing of these items stems from an underlying desire to fulfil our unmet needs – i.e. ‘what I’m really responding to is the problem solving that [the Instagram advert] presented to me’. Additionally social media shopping is a lot more seamless (or frictionless) than in-store shopping transactions, sometimes taking you close to the point of a 1-click ordering process. 

I, however, would argue that social media shopping is rather the fulfilment of a need you never knew you had, well that is until you viewed the highly polished, storytelling, lifestyle changing, self-image enhancing advert.

In a previous life, I worked in a Coca-Cola bottler marketing team in Africa. During that time, the marketing team was always referred to as the ‘Demand Creators’, and the Sales Team as the Demand Fulfillers of the products that were manufactured. This is probably the most accurate description I’ve come across in defining what marketers and advertisers actually do… they create demand for a product or service you didn’t think (or know) you needed. If you hadn’t seen the advert, would you have thought, ‘yes, I definitely need this very specific item’. Possibly not. You would more than likely have made do with what was already available to you. A glass of water is a much healthier, easier, cheaper, better way of quenching your thirst.

Why do we keep compulsively shopping online when we are constantly disappointed with the products we buy?

We know that the anticipation of a reward is often more exciting than the fulfilment of the actual reward. How often have you been really excited about a n upcoming holiday, dinner or event, only to be really disappointed at how little it meets with our expectations.

Neuroscience has shown that the dopamine the brain releases in anticipation of the upcoming reward is a major part of the overall enjoyment of the experience – sometimes to the point that the fulfilment of the action (i.e. the reward) is below par, as we’ve already received the necessary dopamine hit and don’t get the same level of spike when the reward is received.  

We know that scrolling through social media already provides our brain with constant mini-injections of dopamine. It’s why we gravitate towards those apps when we are feeling a little down or bored. Being able to up that level of dopamine through the anticipation of a shopping reward, just capitalises on the constant stream of dopamine already being shunted into the brain – and helps to escalate the fix we are craving. It’s a different type of dopamine fix than the rewards that in-store shopping brings.

Sometimes the need for that dopamine inspired reward seeking behaviour leads us down an addictive bent. Dr Gabor Mate often refers to those types of addictions as a form reward or coping mechanism that you’ve lost control over. Dr Gina Cleo, in the first chapter of her new book ‘The Habit Revolution’, refers to habits as often being formed due to decisive actions taken to fulfil a specific function, which has then turned into a subconscious, automated behaviour.

The dopamine rush, therefore, is the primary anticipation driver of the perceived reward that is the underlying element of addictive or behaviour such as compulsive or impulsive shopping – whether that’s instore or online. That behaviour continues because the dopamine rush from the anticipation is well worth the effort, even when the actual item is of poor quality or doesn’t fulfil expectations. So, we continue to engage in the same behaviour, because we crave the dopamine rush that we get from the shopping experience, the anticipation of the items arrival and the opening up of the parcel when it does arrive.

The thing with Dopamine, is that it’s a great ‘pick me up’. Our body is always trying to maintain a homeostatic balance, so, if we are feeling a little down, a little stressed, a little out-of-sorts, we will automatically find a way to get a dopamine boost – to try balance things out again. If scrolling through social media or purchasing something on Instagram is a quick-fix way of doing that, we are going to be drawn towards doing it – again and again.

What can we do to change our behaviour?

The question is, if we are in a habitual loop of buying things on social media that don’t meet the promised expectations, then what can we do to stop this impulsive or compulsive buying loop?

  1. The first thing is to recognise the habit it for what it is and try to understand what is driving that habit. Think about how you are feeling when you click on the link for the advert. Are you feeling sad, stress, a little low, bored?
  2. The second thing is to understand what has made you feel that way. What is the trigger. Is there anything you could do to reduce the cause of that feeling? If not, is there anything else you can do to make yourself feel a little better that does not result in scrolling through social media and reduce the chances of clicking on a social media ad – buying something you didn’t think you needed?
  3. The third thing is to start shifting your automatic behaviour (i.e. habits) in a different direction in the future. So, for example, when you start recognising that you are starting to feel a little bored, try delaying picking up your phone (so you can scroll through social media) and try doing something else that may help reduce the boredom. The main aim is to give your body and mind something else to associate with a quick dopamine release that doesn’t require picking your phone up.

Maybe the solution lies with spending less time without our devices anywhere near us, so we can relearn what it means to give ourselves the opportunity to ‘just be’, to ‘just watch’, or ‘just listen’, or maybe even watch a significant or meaningful event without looking at it through a screen? Maybe we should create more digital free zones at home and while out with friends?

We often spend a lot more time that we would like to on our digital devices. Creating healthier digital habits takes time and perseverance. It will be tough, but for your longer term digital mental health, it is well worth the effort.

As a side note: the video within the first part of The Guardian article is worth a watch – as part of the Guardians ‘Reclaim Your Brain’ series.

Related Articles
241. DigiTech at School

Technology, education and pre-teen years

I seem to be having a number of discussions with parents (particularly mothers) about the quantity and type of technology that is being used within schools for the purposes of education.

Screentime and homework
The biggest concern, especially for parents of children in younger age groups, has been children only being able to access homework via their smartphones. The parent’s concern is mostly around the issue of limiting their child’s screen time – not being able to do so if they need it for their homework. 
 
Parent’s who have raised this concern with me have expressed the fear that they may be the only parent who has this concern, and they don’t have enough agency to make any change against the school their child attends. 
 
For these parents, I ask them if there are other parents who feel the same and, if there are, to go together to raise their concerns with the school. We often think we are the only ones who feel a certain way and do not want to speak up in case we are a lone voice in a crowd. But, it is often that others feel the same as we do, but are also concerned they are the only ones to be so. 
 
Focus and distraction
From a neuro-cyberpsychology perspective I have a lot of concern for the level of technology / screen based use in the education of young people. Using constantly shifting information and media reduces the brains capacity for ‘deep’ information processing – resulting in rapid attention shifting/decreased ability to sustain attention and reduced ability to deliberate. It reduces the ability to pay attention and focus while increasing distractibility. The brain is still growing at super-speed at this age – and is still building those key neural pathways for overall (although are still neuroplastic in adulthood) brain structure and sets the groundwork for adult behaviour and capabilities. 
 
Children of this age should not have the kind of exposure they do to screens and content that they do. It is a parent’s prerogative as to how much screen exposure a child gets, but schools and teachers should minimise engagement in online content and should not be giving them homework that can only be/is mostly accessed via a screen.
 
Left-behind or left out?
I often hear the argument that they will be ‘left behind’ their peers if they do not engage in digital technology. But this is not true. Just look at how little exposure the big tech CEO’s (the very people who develop the hard and software used) give their children to digital technology. 
 
What is of greater relevance is the notion of children being teased or ostracised by peer-groups because they don’t have the same access as others in the group.
Post-apocalyptic 'educational' content
The second concern is some the type of content that children are exposed to, as part of their education. A concerned mum recently asked me to review a hyper-realistic animation video her 10 year old son had to watch as part of the English curriculum. The is video part of The Literacy Shed materials available for educational use – and can be viewed here. 
 
Having been disturbed by the video her son had to watch, the mum found other  parents who were equally  concerned about the content. 
 
I suspect that not all parents would like their pre-teen children to be exposed to action-based or violent content – whether animated, AI generated, real or CGI. Even if the content is used for ‘educational purposes’. Surely there is plenty of alternative content that can be used to achieve exactly the same educational purposes that is not of an intense or violent nature or has triggering potential?
De-sensitisation and information processing
I’m guessing a child would need to watch the video a number of times in order to be able to answer the questions. Some psychologists refer to repeated exposure to disturbing/extreme content as ‘fear conditioning’ and studies show that constant exposure to this type of  content can lead to desensitisation to violence, decrease in empathy and suppression of effective information processing. Although the studies were done on older video-gamers, it seems a little ironic to me that children are expected to process information to answer specific questions after repeated watching of post-apocalyptic/violent material that may reduce their ability to process information. 
 
Pre-teens and peer acceptance
Around the double-digit-age mark, children start separating their self-identity-base from the family, creating bonds with peers and are beginning to feel pressure to conform. They are hyper-sensitive to criticism and resist the possibility of being viewed as an outsider. So if a child feels uncomfortable with this type of content, they are unlikely to admit as much to teaches and peers – especially if their peers are playing/watching a lot of violent video games (which a surprising number are at this age). 
 
Developmental pace and emotional safeguarding
Every child is different and develops at a different pace to others – so what will trigger or soothe them differs accordingly. One 9 year old viewing the content as being ‘cool’ is no indication that all children at a similar age will feel just as ‘cool’ about it.
 
The context of the video watching plays a role in how children feel. For some children watching a potentially ’scary’ movie or content could feel safe when they are with a trusted adult/parent – where they know they are physically, emotionally and psychologically protected and safe-guarded.
 
Watching the same content on their own, in front of peers or within a school environment will have a different impact – as they will not feel that same level of safeguarding that comes from those they trust to protect them. 
 
Social developmental and online risk
From a developmental perspective, this is the age range that children are most vulnerable to the internet and online harms/risks. This is when they are starting to learn the differences between right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice. They are not ‘little adult’s’. They are psychologically incapable of making as much sense of the world as grown-ups are.
 
As every child mentally develops at different rates, so what is ok for one, will be very much not ok for another. Boys are also more vulnerable and less resilient than girls at age 9/10 y.o. – so it is interesting that the content in the video is focussed on more male-based characteristics of fighting, defending and conquering. 
 
Personality and hyper-sensitivity
From a personality perspective, some people are a lot more hyper-sensitive than others and more vulnerable when exposed to external stimuli. They feel more deeply and have a stronger brain mirroring network – which means that they are highly socially and emotionally intelligent and are more likely to internally experience similar emotions, feelings and actions of others (virtual or in-person) they are watching or engaging with.
 
Exposure to this type of content for a highly-sensitive 9-10 year old would, therefore, be experienced at a much deeper level than for others of the same age. 
Do phones belong in schools?

This is a highly sensitive and polarising topic. Mobile phones have been banned in schools in France, Italy and Portugal. In October 2023 the UK government announced that ‘Mobile phone use to be banned during the school day, including at break time’, in an attempt to tackle online bullying, decrease distractions and increase attention and focus. 

A recent Guardian article reports on some of the benefits of reducing hyper-connectivity in the school environment and the resulting increase in attention and face-to-face connectivity. It show-cases a Massachusetts (USA) school that has introduced a Light Phone with minimal functionality, that results in less time spent on screens, fewer distractions and more meaningful interactions in and out of classes.  

A Rutgers University–New Brunswick study found that mobile use during educational sessions can reduce overall test scores. 

The study found that having a device didn’t lower students’ scores in comprehension tests within lectures but did lower their scores in the end-of-term exam by at least 5 percent, or half a grade. This finding shows for the first time that the main effect of divided attention in the classroom is on long-term retention.

In addition, when the use of electronic devices was allowed in class, performance was also poorer for students who did not use devices as well as for those who did’.

What is the 'digital technology use in schools' solution?

That is not an easy question to answer.

We are still in the middle of a digital technology social experiment – on-boarding all available technology and finding out the longer-term (positive and negative) consequences as we go along. Sometimes after investing a lot of money and social capital into the said technology. 

It will take us a few decades to really understand the human and social consequences of our digital technology use in the education system. But, it does seem that teachers and parents needs to take a more cautionary approach to what and how much digital integration is included.

Maybe we need to revert to a greater degree of ‘non-digital education’. It worked for many generations, and still has that capacity to be a highly effective form of learning. 

Related Articles
Digital Push Back

Digital Push Back

Productivity is one of those words that is often bandied about in business as something that needs to be improve upon.

But, what does it mean to be ‘productive’ as a knowledge worker? We may sense how productive we are being in a day, it is sometimes a KPI that forms part of our annual objectives, or maybe it’s a perceived state of how we contribute to our team goals.

In a manufacturing age, productivity can often be translated as developing more ‘knowledge widgets’ as a form of business asset building. So, being productive is synonymous with writing that report, building that presentation, completing that project, etc. It’s getting more stuff done, more quickly.

We know that being distracted by our notifications and online worlds can scupper our focus and the amount of work we are able to get done during a working day suffers, as a result. Spending more time scrolling through social media, watching cat videos or being distracted by notifications and messages from friends/family during the working day means less time spent getting work done.

But, what if the definition of productivity was not so much about numerical output, but more about quality and depth of output? How does digital technology affect that element of productivity?

A few ways are:

* Spending time scrolling through social media and watching short film clips reduces our attention span.

* Our ability to spend time thinking about and contemplating things and reflecting on life is reduced when we turn to a screen every time we have a break from work.

* Not giving the creative sections of our brain time to engage means we are less likely to come up with unique solutions to problems.

* If we are distracting ourselves with screens and devices, instead of taking time to think, reflect and be inspired, we tend to reduce our ability to think deeply.

Maybe part of what we need to be doing a lot more of is pushing back on our own definition of what it means to be digitally distracted and how this affects our productivity.

Maybe it’s not just about turning off our notifications. Maybe it’s about spending more time without our devices anywhere near us, so we can relearn what it means to give ourselves the opportunity to ‘just be’. Time to think, time to contemplate, time to go deep, time to be more creative, time to talk with others, time to just be with others. Maybe…

As a long-time fan of Cal Newport, I am delighted that he is bringing out a new book early this year – on this very topic – on how to become more productive. But this is not the kind of ‘generating knowledge widgets’ productive. Rather it is how to produce knowledge value – that creates change, has meaning, takes time, but is of great quality and value. 

Cal’s writing and thinking often flies in the face of mainstream corporate culture and also captures the essence of what a large (seeming) minority of disenfranchised knowledge workers are feeling, explains it so it makes sense and then provides solutions to the problem at hand.

In a December 2023 article for The New Yorker, he meditates on a few topics I often talk through:

  • Children ought not to be given access to social media before the age of 13 – although 16 is probably a better age from an emotional and psychological perspective.
  • We should be more selective about what technology we take on board, rather than immersing ourselves in the latest trends and gadgets.
  • Spending more conscientious time away from our distraction devices is good for our physical, mental, emotional and communal well-being.
  • Taking time out from devices is not just good for general mental well-being, but essential for creativity, reflection and self-esteem.
  • We need to change the paradigm of how we view our work, our lives, the perspectives we have around digital technology and the narratives we engage in around work and work culture.
  • ‘Pushing Back’ at the BigTech corporates is an individual decision about how to optimise tech use (and reduce where necessary). Government bodies are responsible for ensuring regulatory boundaries are put in place to limit the control and data mining of personal data by BigTech, but we need to ensure we use technology for our benefit and to continue to improve what we do, rather than allowing ourselves to be ‘enslaved’ by the gadgets we purchase and use.

Cal Newport’s new book (released in March 2024) is all about Productivity – and how we have fallen for the fallacy that greater levels of time spent working is the same as being productive and producing high-quality work. The premise in his (free to download) introduction is that: 

‘The relentless overload that’s wearing us down is generated by a belief that “good” work requires increasing busyness— faster responses to email and chats, more meetings, more tasks, more hours.’

This is going to be another well-thought-out, well-written and timely book. It’s well worth a read/listen as soon as it is out.

Related Digital Home Articles
Digital Dieting

Digital dieting is better than digital detox

The New Year is often filled with resolutions on how to be better, do things better, achieve more, go more places, do more things…

Often our annual resolutions come with one or another form of ‘detox’ that we hope will change our habits and ways of ‘doing life’.

After a bit of effort (and an attempt to bolster our willpower levels with super-human feats of determination) it is not long before ‘life’ gets in the way and maintaining our resolutions becomes too much hard work.

Without always realising it until we’ve picked them up again and subconsciously slipped back into old automatic habits and behaviours.

Anecdotally, a lot of us know that we spend too long on our devices and in front of a screen. We open an app and get lost of hours, afterwards regretting the time we could have spent doing something else or being somewhere else or talking with someone else.

We also either recognise or sense that we are losing focus and attention – both at work and at home. Johann Hari investigates this in his book ‘Stolen Focus’.

A recent Guardian article feeds back on research questions they put out to the public on how much time they felt they spent online. It seems a lot of us are in the same boat – feeling that we are consumed by our digital media and are more addicted than we’d like to be. From the article, you can sign up to their weekly newsletter, where you can receive tips and tricks on how to ‘break up with your phone’.

This could be an interesting series to engage in, but with a caveat that making longer-term changes to your relationship with technology is not just about ‘breaking up with your phone’, it is also about understanding what is driving your relationship with and using your devices (and apps).

Digging below the surface of our behaviour can have interesting consequences. Our excessive phone use could be:

  • a means to mitigate loneliness
  • an escape from reality
  • an inability to be bored
  • a fear of missing out
  • a way to signal your identity to others (especially if the technology is new)
  • etc

Like any other potential addictive or compulsive behaviour, understanding the underlying cause of excessive digital tech use can empower you with more of a chance of overcoming the addiction/compulsion and making a lasting change.

A better option than engaging in a digital detox is building better digital habits and finding ways to reduce digital engagement – much like limiting calorific intake if going on a food diet. James Clear’s ‘Atomic Habits’ book could be a good place to start in building your personal digital habit changes.

Putting boundaries in place that reduce our access to a device, app or game can be very helpful in reducing the amount of time we spend engaging in digital habits. An example would be removing social media apps from your phone, but leaving them on your laptop – providing an extra few steps in the process of accessing the content can reduce your use. A time-based boundary could be only allowing yourself access to social media during your train ride home from work. 

A short-term digital detoxes has its place in showcasing the effect the behaviour has on your life – both in terms of what you are missing out on in ‘real world’ interactions, but also in how that behaviour is making you feel from a positive and negative perspective. In her book ‘Dopamine Nation’, Dr Lemke talks about the benefits of short-term detoxes (even a 24-hour detox) as a way of highlighting the impact the behaviour has on your body and mind. 

However, creating a strategy and building actionable steps into your daily life is a much better longer-term solution. From a digital perspective, think through things like: 

  • what notifications you will allow to remain on
  • how much time you spend with your phone in your field of vision/nearby
  • whether you check your work emails after hours
  • what apps you have on your phone (including social media)
  • if your phone goes with you into the bedroom at night
  • what ‘rules’ you have around phone use in social settings
  • if you reach for your phone while waiting for someone or something
  • if you go anywhere without a phone – so you have time to re-engage with others/nature/etc.
Related Articles