I noticed this looking at my brother's kids and my cousin's girls. My nephews are stuck to the screen, which ended up with them learning more and quite intelligent, but my cousin has a no screen policy for the first years of life, and his girls are emotionally intelligent and quite mature for their age. So, in the short version, screen = more learning and intellectual intelligence - IQ, no screen = more EQ. Later in life, it is the EQ that matters, to achieve a happy, fulfilled life. But IQ means more money long term. Where do you draw the line?
I had no screen restrictions for my kids at all from a very young age and was constantly getting told by other people (who were mostly stunned that they could hold an extended conversation with an adult, again from quite young 🤣) that they were very intelligent and emotionally mature for their age.
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of nature that goes into that along with the nurturing.
Are the kids in question still pretty young? They might just take a bit to figure out self regulation. My kids went from not being that interested to being too interested to now being very good at managing themselves and balancing on screen activities with plenty of offscreen ones.
I do think there is a lot of nature in there too, but I also wonder if this has changed in the last decade and a half, where parents now have also been raised on screens. Perhaps it also has an effect?
Yes. all under 10 - my question is what happens with self-regulation, considering that if you look at the shift in obesity over the last 50 years, we aren't very good at self-regulating.
I don't think so, I've seen just as many selfish, self-absorbed parents who weren't raised on screens as I have the newer set of parents who were. And once upon a time books and newspapers were blamed for killing conversations because people would rather sit and read than engage.
coincidentally "reading too much" was what was blamed for my terrible eyesight, we didn't get the computer til I was near teens
You were talking at some stage about how childhood can be used for practising skills that you need in adult life, self regulation is one of them. And as I said in the other comment, it's very hard to practise anything if you never get to encounter a situation where it would be needed or if everything is relentlessly done for you :D Like debt management I think it's one of those things that needs to be practised in a safe environment where the consequences while possibly painful at the time aren't going to be too damaging in the long term.
As for what happens with self-regulation, well I gave the example with my kids unless you were asking something else and I completely misinterpreted x_x It wasn't smooth sailing in the slightest but they figured it out. The same holds for most of the older two's friends bar a a few (some are special needs, some I think just don't want to get it); these "kids" are all late teens/early 20s from diverse backgrounds (some homeschooled, most schooled, differing levels of parental involvement and socioeconomics etc).
Also conspiracy theory self control is the absolute worst for a cancerous economy run by worthless insecure control freaks which is why everyone should just have a good time and treat themselves because they deserve it.
I am not sure that it adds to IQ, rather than it fills the brain with information that can be regurgitated. Kids seem smart because they can repeat things they have heard, but that is the skill of kids - they are sponges. However, when it comes to putting that into practice, it is a different matter.
I see that in childhood we get the chance to practice things, which means being active, not passive. Thinking we can, doesn't mean we can. The screens teach trivia, not application, and very few consumers will ever actually apply what they have learned.
My daughter for example doesn't know a lot of trivia, but she understands complex concepts and can discuss them, adding insight, and brings in real world examples from her life. It isn't genetic, it is just how we interact with her. She is included in conversations when we are eating, at the shops, driving along to the city. We spend time actually seeing each other's faces. I think it makes a difference in how we are able to judge situations later in life too. Many kids barely see a face directly these days.
I was listening to a podcast the other day about complicated problems and complex problems. Complicated problems can be difficult to solve, but once they are solved, the solution can be replicated easily. Complex problems are those that have many variables that keep changing and shifting, and are impossible to solve perfectly.
The IQ of humans is complicated. A fulfilled life is complex.
AI is already better at many things than the average human, and string multiple narrow AIs together, and most humans can't compete at all. They aren't very good company in bed though, and they don't give a nice massage. They also don't feel joy when we make them laugh.
If our IQ can be replaced, what value can we bring to the table of humanity?