Given your attitudes to scientific study outcomes, I recommend perhaps you’d do better in a regressive society where science won’t bother you or prompt changes to behaviours you don’t want to change.
Maybe I am. I also was a teacher in the Dutch education system, so maybe I’m speaking with a much greater understanding of the impacts on the classroom than you are.
Phones are addictive in some senses and restricting access to them and likewise connected devices should be considered if they are having a proven impact on schooling, which they are. Maybe they won’t need to be restricted forever, I would hope not, but as technological advancement outstrips society’s ability to affect change to match we need some controls.
I chose my example of cocaine specifically, unlike cheese and fats there is a direct psychological and dopamine impact to Phones. Your examples of shopping and sugar are telling though, as shopping isn’t something you can do in the middle of a class, and many educational systems have come round to the idea that maybe refined sugar isn’t conducive to concentration, and have thus banned sale on school grounds and some have gone as far to ban it’s consumption too.
So perhaps I am a moron, but in this topic I’m speaking with a much better understanding of the subject than perhaps you’re giving me credit for. Engaging with the reasons for a change you don’t like can help you understand how best to affect a different change that more closely aligns with your views, instead of taking a “regulation is bad” stance and therefore throwing out totally inane counters.
Or you can call me names on the internet for not agreeing with you. Deine Wahl, Fotzengesicht.
This is complete bs. And if you truly believe that then go live Mormon.
Given your attitudes to scientific study outcomes, I recommend perhaps you’d do better in a regressive society where science won’t bother you or prompt changes to behaviours you don’t want to change.
Bro sugar is addictive, shopping is addictive, cheese is addictive, fats are addictive…
You cant just say “Phone addictive so bad! Just like Cocaine!” you sound like a fucking moron and probably are exactly that.
Maybe I am. I also was a teacher in the Dutch education system, so maybe I’m speaking with a much greater understanding of the impacts on the classroom than you are. Phones are addictive in some senses and restricting access to them and likewise connected devices should be considered if they are having a proven impact on schooling, which they are. Maybe they won’t need to be restricted forever, I would hope not, but as technological advancement outstrips society’s ability to affect change to match we need some controls.
I chose my example of cocaine specifically, unlike cheese and fats there is a direct psychological and dopamine impact to Phones. Your examples of shopping and sugar are telling though, as shopping isn’t something you can do in the middle of a class, and many educational systems have come round to the idea that maybe refined sugar isn’t conducive to concentration, and have thus banned sale on school grounds and some have gone as far to ban it’s consumption too.
So perhaps I am a moron, but in this topic I’m speaking with a much better understanding of the subject than perhaps you’re giving me credit for. Engaging with the reasons for a change you don’t like can help you understand how best to affect a different change that more closely aligns with your views, instead of taking a “regulation is bad” stance and therefore throwing out totally inane counters.
Or you can call me names on the internet for not agreeing with you. Deine Wahl, Fotzengesicht.