A good article on “parental digital distraction” in The Atlantic. The analyst explained it a lot better but it’s good that the mainstream is at least waking up to the idea, even if it does so in this clunky and tortured way.
A good article on “parental digital distraction” in The Atlantic. The analyst explained it a lot better but it’s good that the mainstream is at least waking up to the idea, even if it does so in this clunky and tortured way.
There is nothing more precious to a small child than mommy’s love and attention. It’s a simple survival mechanism. If mommy is looking at me, she’ll notice what I need and will provide it.
When a child sees that mommy’s gaze is persistently directed towards an object (eg a phone, a tablet, etc), the child begins to see that object as invested with mommy’s love. Mommy is holding it and / or looking at it, so if I hold it and / or look at it, I will finally hold mommy’s love. And so not being able to hold it / look at it creates extreme anxiety.
So is that why small children will absolutely grab onto the smartphone, remote or old school phone and unerringly refuse the play ones?
LikeLike
Right! It does explain it. They follow the emotion.
Small children have access to the parents’ unconscious. Which is creepy as fuck but what can you do. It goes away eventually, so there’s a light at the end of the tunnel.
LikeLike
Have you received my email? I looked in my Sent Mail and noticed the mail’s title — believe me, I wasn’t the one who wrote it. The person (unnamed here) who sent me the initial message did it as a joke.
LikeLike