Hello and welcome.
I'm Elise Hu, the host
of the TED Talks Daily podcast,
and I'm so glad
to be with all of you today
for our TED Talks Daily Summer Book Club,
a special series on the TED
Talks Daily podcast.
It's a show where we deliver ideas
that inspire every day.
So today we are slowing down to ask:
What are our phones doing
to childhood, and to us?
Around 2010,
we all observed the mental health
of young people in the US
starting to get worse.
Rates of depression, anxiety,
suicide and self-harm
started climbing up and haven't come down.
In his new book, "The Anxious Generation,"
social psychologist Jonathan Haidt
makes a strong case
that the cause is smartphones.
He looks to Gen Z as an example.
They came of age with unfettered access
to the internet and social media,
and he argues that these numbers
are the consequence
of the new childhood reality.
John Haidt, welcome and thank you
for digging into this with us.
Jonathan Haidt: Well, thank you Elise.
EH: So much of this book really hinges
on the moment around 2010,
when a few dramatic changes
took place in the digital world.
Talk to us about what happened then
and why you consider it a big deal.
JH: So let me actually start in 1990,
because you have to understand
how we all got tricked into this.
So if we go back to 1990,
there was no internet,
nobody knew what the internet was.
So the internet arrives around 1994, 1995,
and it's amazing.
It's like God said, "Hey, do you want
to know anything, instantly?"
I still remember how exciting it was.
So the internet was amazing.
And the millennials
were teenagers at the time,
they were going through puberty,
and they charged onto it.
And they made it their own,
and found all kinds of ways to do things.
And they started internet companies
and they are creative,
successful generation.
Also, the Berlin Wall
fell just before that.
And democracy has ascended in the '90s,
and we're thinking, democracy,
its best friend is the internet.
How could a dictator ever keep it out?
Good luck China, keeping out the internet.
So we were all super optimistic.
Once you get the smartphone, 2007,
now you start getting
the App Store and apps.
You get Uber.
So all of this is miraculous.
So our kids love it,
kids always love technology.
And we're all like, well, OK.
They're spending a lot of time on it,
but you know, maybe
it's making them smarter,
it's going to teach them tech skills,
so this is all good, we thought.
So that's the setup.
And if you were born in 1990, let’s say,
then you hit puberty around 2002, 2003.
You go through puberty with a flip phone.
You use your flip phone
to call your friends
and to text them one-on-one,
and you meet up and you do things
in the real world, so you're fine.
You have a normal human development,
normal human puberty,
and you come out the other end
as a mentally healthy person.
But suppose you're born in 2000.
You are seven when the iPhone comes out.
You got a front-facing camera in 2010.
You are 11 when you probably got one.
You got on Instagram when you were 12.
So when you hit puberty,
you're going through puberty
not meeting up with your friends,
you're going through puberty swiping,
tapping, liking and hanging on,
"What if I post something?
How will people react?"
Half of our kids say they are
on the internet almost all the time,
50 percent, almost all the time.
This is not a normal human childhood.
There's not as much face-to-face contact.
You don't get to develop social skills,
you don't have hobbies or read books.
You're just on your phone all day long.
And guess what?
Their mental health collapsed,
especially for the girls.
Instantly, it's not a slow thing.
Instantly, around 2012,
you get these hockey stick shapes
in all the graphs in my book.
There was no sign of a problem in 2010,
and by 2015, it's all over the world.
We don't know about the developing world,
but all over the Western world
we start seeing this especially for girls.
So that's the story.
EH: And what do you think was going wrong?
JH: So the story I tell
in the book is two things.
I decided not just to write a book
about what social media is doing.
But to write a book which is really
more about childhood.
What is it, why do we have it,
why is human childhood
so different from every other animal,
including chimpanzees?
Because we grow fast after you're born.
But then you slow down.
And we don't grow very fast
until we hit puberty.
Why do we delay?
We have these amazing cultural brains.
This is our great adaptation.
This is why we cover the world
and chimpanzees don't.
And that all depends
on a slow growth process
with a lot of cultural learning
from your elders,
from the people ahead of you
in your culture.
So that's part of it.
Also part of it is play.
Young mammals need a huge amount of play,
free play to wire up their brains.
All animals practice skills
they'll use as adults.
So you take what I call
the play-based childhood,
which is what we've had
for 300 million years,
going back to the beginning of mammals.
And then 2010 to 2015,
kids now have a phone-based childhood.
And that, I argue,
is what's blocking development.
We've never seen such
a sharp change in generations
in terms of their mental health.
So that's what we see
when we look back historically.
We can certainly now discuss it, you know,
the research, trying to pin it down.
But what I'm pointing to
is an incredible pattern of changes
that happened in many
countries simultaneously,
always with more increases for the girls,
not affecting the middle-aged people,
but only affecting the teenagers.
And no one can offer another explanation
other than the transformation
of childhood by the technology.
EH: You call this transition
from a play-based childhood
to a phone-based childhood
a “great rewiring.”
So how do you believe the minds
of these Gen Z kids
are wired differently now?
JH: Just think about it this way.
For those of you who are over 35 or 40,
you surely had a play-based childhood.
What I'd like you to do is think back
on the most exciting things
that you ever did as a child.
Think back on times you just
were hanging out with your friends.
Think back on how much time you spent
laughing with your friends.
Laughing, joking, playing around, OK?
Now take all of that,
cut it by 80 percent,
because Gen Z didn't get that.
They have almost no unsupervised time.
They don't get to hang out
behind the 7-Eleven
or down by the river,
or in a playground
or anywhere, except online.
So take 70 percent of that out.
Think of all the times
you smiled at a person
or you made eye contact.
Take 70 percent of that out.
Again, I don't know the exact number,
but for the kids who say
they're online almost all the time,
it's probably 70 percent.
Think of all the books you read.
Take 70 percent of those out,
maybe 100 percent.
Gen Z has no time to read books.
They have so much content
to consume to keep up.
There's very little book reading.
Think about hobbies, did you have a hobby?
Take that out.
So you take out almost everything.
Because again, if the latest
numbers are on average,
American kids are spending
seven to nine hours a day
on entertainment and screen stuff,
not counting school.
Seven to nine hours a day is the average,
depending on how you count it.
Take childhood, take out almost everything
that you valued in it,
and what's left?
EH: But does hanging out
have to be in person
and with making eye contact in real life?
Because a lot of these kids
would argue, we hang out all the time.
We hang out in games, we hang out,
you know, on social platforms,
we are connecting.
We're just connecting in a different way.
And Jon Haidt, you’re the fuddy duddy,
you know, for coming down
on just the different tools
that we're using to hang out and connect.
JH: Oh that’s a great objection.
And, you know, 10 years ago
or 15 years ago
when I first saw Twitter
and people sending out,
"I just had a hamburger,"
I thought, God, this is so trivial.
But then as a social psychologist,
I thought, well, actually, wait,
if you're sort of checking in
with your friends
hundreds of times a day,
that could be really good.
But what I've come to see is
the online world gives you
multiple ways to connect virtually,
which often lacks certain properties.
So the most important one
is being synchronous.
So right now you and I are synchronous.
We can see each other's
facial expressions.
But on Zoom there's a little
bit of awkwardness,
you don't quite get the timing.
So video games, Twitch, all these things
that allow you to go
two-way, voice and face,
those have some benefits, I'll grant that.
Whereas going back and forth
in group texts,
group text is performance,
not connecting one-on-one
like an old phone call.
So synchronous is good.
All the asynchronous ones,
I think, miss that.
Another feature is that you
now have such vast quantity.
Imagine taking the number of people
you talk with every day,
multiply that by 50,
OK, that might sound great,
but how much time
do you then have for anyone?
So you don't get the kind of
in-depth conversations.
When I was a kid,
it was just sort of famous
that girls will talk on the phone
for hours and hours at night,
just one-on-one, they're connecting.
Boys don't do that,
but we call each other up and say,
hey, can you come out?
And we'd meet and go
do something together,
one-on-one or in a small group,
that’s all great.
The large groups are not connecting;
they’re performing.
And kids are anxious.
They have to think carefully
before they put something out.
Because what if I make a mistake?
Play needs to have lots
of low-cost mistakes.
You say something stupid,
your friend says, "That was mean."
And you say, "Oh, sorry."
But when you grow up online,
it's like growing up in a minefield
because you never know,
one mistake, it could
actually ruin your life.
It could literally ruin your life
and make you not get into college.
So this is something that so many
professors have observed.
We can't get our students to disagree
with each other anymore.
They're so afraid.
They've grown up in a minefield.
They know, one false move
and their leg gets blown off.
So I think, you know,
you can praise all those virtual
connections all you want,
they don't seem to have
the magic ingredient of hanging out
with a friend in real life.
EH: And the way
you explain it in the book,
the rise in anxiety and depression
isn't really happening in isolation
because it also sort of coincides
or interacts with a change
in parenting culture.
So talk to us a little bit
about that cultural shift
that you're saying is happening
all at the same time.
JH: A big part of this
is the overprotective parenting.
And, you know, I can summarize
the whole book by saying
we've overprotected our children
in the real world,
we've under-protected them online.
So let's look at the overprotection.
Until the 1980s, American kids
had a free-range childhood.
I grew up in the ’70s,
and there was a huge crime wave.
There were crazy people,
there were serial killers.
Crime was at historically high levels.
All kids went out,
and it was amazing and exciting.
And, you know, we got into all kinds
of arguments and fights
and sports games
and just we had an exciting childhood.
And that goes on until the '90s.
Now you get the new media environment,
so you get cable TV,
you get 24-hour news cycles.
So in the '90s, for a lot of reasons,
we freak out and we lock our kids up,
or rather I should say,
we no longer think it's OK
for an eight-year-old
to be outside unsupervised by an adult.
Now it's more like 10 or 11
is when kids get that level of freedom.
So here's the big reason why.
It's not just the change
in television and cable TV.
The biggest reason, I now believe,
is the loss of trust in everyone else.
There's a great phrase
from British sociologist Frank Furedi.
He talks about the collapse
of adult solidarity.
So even in the '70s,
when there was a lot of crime,
you know, if I wiped out
on my bicycle and I got hurt,
my friend could go knock
on a door and say,
"Hey, can you call my mother?"
But we begin to lose trust in each other,
life moves away from the streets
and moves indoors
as we get air conditioning and television.
We don't know our neighbors anymore.
That's why we don't trust
our kids to be let out.
So there's a whole back story
that really begins in the '80s
and into the '90s,
in which we took away
the play-based childhood.
Oh and at the exact same time,
the internet arrives.
And so, you know, we don't
want to let our kids out.
But this new internet thing,
the kids love it.
They're sitting in the room
on a computer, what could happen?
EH: Five hours a day is the stat now?
JH: For social media.
It's seven to 10, seven to nine, in there
if you include video games and porn
and all the other things
that the kids are doing.
But just social media
is five hours a day -- average.
EH: If they're spending
so much time on social media,
what are they doing less off?
JH: Everything else.
The most important things
they're doing less of, in order, are:
any kind of face-to-face contact
with their friends or family;
listening to their teachers,
because they're doing this in school, too,
because most schools let them keep
their phones in their pockets;
flirting or gossiping or talking
with their friends in school or at lunch.
Because even at lunch, if you have
phones in your pockets at lunch,
the kids are doing what's called
continuous partial attention.
So they're continually paying attention
to what's going on in their phones,
and then they're also sometimes
having conversations
with the kid next to them.
In other words, there's no real
quality human connection.
That's the most important thing.
If you take most human connection
out of childhood, there's not a lot left.
Number two, sleep.
Kids really, really need sleep.
We're now discovering sleep is so much
more important than we thought
back when I was in graduate school.
Kids are getting less sleep,
especially those who have a device in bed.
I mean, imagine if you had
to suddenly give five to 10 hours a day
to some new thing.
There's nothing else.
That pushes out everything else.
EH: I want to talk a little bit
about the responses to the book,
because this was a number one
New York Times bestseller,
and there have been plenty of responses
following "The Anxious
Generation's" release.
A number of social scientists
have questioned
the conclusions in the book,
notably this article in "Nature"
that gets shared pretty widely,
where Candice Odgers writes
that "Hundreds of researchers,
myself included,
have searched for the kind
of large effects suggested by Haidt.
Our efforts have produced a mix
of no, small and mixed associations.
Most data are correlative."
So she continues that when
they can find a relationship
between phones and anxiety
or poor mental health outcomes,
it tends to be that teens
who are already depressed
tend to use social media more.
So how do you respond to this, you know,
correlation-not-necessarily-
causation argument?
JH: So let's start by setting the scene.
We have a massive collapse
of mental health
that happens in a synchronized format
in many countries, especially to girls.
Happens at the same time.
There is no other explanation.
The parents see it,
the teachers and principals see it,
psychiatrists, psychologists see it.
So the presumption should be,
something is going on here
and it may be related to the technology.
OK, now, what do we know from the data?
There are two main battlefields.
There are the correlational studies,
where there's hundreds
and hundreds of them,
they're easy to do,
you just look who's more depressed,
who spends more hours on social media.
Now hours spent
on social media is the variable
that you're correlating
with some self-report of mental health.
And then you look at the connection,
and the correlations tend
to be around 0.1 for boys,
they're actually around 0.2 for girls.
This is what we're fighting about.
Now Candice Odgers says
that this is a small correlation.
She and others won't be convinced
unless we find large correlations,
like, say, 0.3 or 0.4.
But in public health,
you rarely get 0.3 or 0.4
because you have very poor
measurement at both ends.
So that's the correlational studies.
We're sort of at a stalemate there.
The more important battleground
is on the experiments.
We all know correlation
doesn't show causation.
So we move to the experiments.
And what did the experiments show?
I think we can show that the great
majority of experiments
do show a benefit
from getting off social media.
And very importantly,
all of these studies
are taking individuals
and asking them to get off.
And they're mostly college students.
And if you take a college student,
say, "Hey, we'll pay you
to get off social media for a month.
Now, how do you feel?"
And it turns out they feel better,
but they're also isolated.
The real test is what happens
if you take a whole school,
a whole high school,
and get them off social media?
My prediction is you would
have a huge increase
because now they're not isolated,
they're actually more together.
And the most important theme of my book
is that it's collective effects
that have to be addressed
by collective action.
The reason every 13-year-old girl
has to be on Instagram
is because every other
13-year-old girl is on Instagram.
My college students say the same thing.
They can't get off
because everyone else is on.
So she says, we don't find the large
effects that would be necessary.
That's because those researchers,
they're not even considering
the collective emergent
properties of social media.
EH: Yeah, it does seem
like an enormous task, though,
Jon Haidt, to take
collective action on something,
because for younger generations,
so much of the way
that they connect these days
and find community
is taking place on devices.
And so how do you address
kind of, this problem
where well everyone else is on it,
I don't want to be the one left out?
And how do we get past this
challenge of collective action?
JH: We get past it by acting together.
Any one kid who gets off is alone.
Any one parent who says, "You're not
getting a phone till high school,"
now their kid is isolated.
But there is a place
where we all have community
and that is our local kids' schools.
It's as simple as this.
If you're a parent listening to this
and you have kids
under the age of 12, let's say,
just reach out to two other parents
of your kids' friends and say,
“We want to do the four norms
from ‘The Anxious Generation.’
Are you with me?"
And they probably will be with you.
The four norms are: no smartphone
till high school, around 14;
no social media till 16;
phone-free schools
and so parents can push
the school to go phone-free;
and the fourth is far more independence,
free-play and responsibility
in the real world.
That's the hardest one
because that requires us to change.
But it's the most important
in that if we're going
to take the screens,
the 10 hours a day of screen time,
take that away from kids,
we have to give them back
an exciting childhood.
EH: You mentioned big tech.
Why place the onus of responsibility
on individual families
or neighborhoods or kids
when it is these giant tech companies
who are designing the apps
and the phones for maximum
engagement and profit?
Can they not make changes
to the way software is designed,
and can governments not better
regulate these companies?
JH: Yes, they certainly
could make changes,
but they're in a collective
action trap, too.
We know this from Frances Haugen,
who brought out the Facebook files.
Facebook is actively
recruiting underage kids.
They really need those kids.
And they know that if they
were to crack down,
those kids would just go to TikTok.
So the tech companies certainly
could solve this,
but they're in a collective
action problem, too,
because if one of them
does the right thing,
the kids will just lie about their age
and go somewhere else.
Also, Congress gave them immunity.
The courts have interpreted
Section 230 very broadly,
so that if your kids are harmed
by anything that they saw online,
well, Section 230 says
you can’t sue the company.
So these are the biggest, most powerful,
richest companies in the world.
They've been given free reign
to own our kids' childhood.
They have limited legal
responsibility so far.
And we're trying to get
a bill through Congress
that does some fairly modest things
about setting defaults
and just begins to establish
children are not adults.
You have to treat them differently.
If there was any other consumer product,
let's imagine a new toy
comes out on the market.
The kids love it.
And 90 percent of kids
are using this toy five hours a day.
And thousands are being hospitalized
for depression, eating disorders, anxiety.
And some kids are killing themselves
after using the toy.
So what I'm saying is,
we have a defective consumer product.
Do you think that that toy
maybe would be recalled?
Do you think maybe someone --
EH: Or regulated.
JH: Maybe regulated?
Like, maybe you have to change it
so that it doesn't wreak such damage?
So that's what the Surgeon
General is saying.
The surgeon General is saying
while the scientists fight
about whether social media caused
the increase at the population level,
like, the graphs I show
in the book with the hockey sticks,
did social media cause that increase
at the population level?
That's an academic debate.
I can't be 100 percent certain I'm right.
But what the surgeon general was saying
was, regardless of that debate,
here are hundreds of cases
of kids who were sextorted,
they were bullied, they were shamed,
and then they killed themselves that day.
So the Surgeon General is saying,
if this was any other consumer product,
we'd regulate it and we'd put
warning labels on it.
Why not this one?
EH: You have two kids.
How have you wound up navigating
phone use at your own house?
JH: Yeah, so we gave my son a phone,
my old iPhone, as most people do,
when he was in fourth grade
when he started walking to school.
This was back, you know,
in the early 2010s,
we didn't know any better.
Now in retrospect, we should have
just given him a phone watch
or a basic phone.
And that's what we did with my daughter,
who's three years younger.
I gave her a big pink Gizmo Watch,
and in third grade, she loved it.
And I could send her out
in third or fourth grade.
I could send her out into the park,
out to get bagels.
So we at least did that for my daughter.
The place where I did hold the line
is on social media.
I said, no way,
you're not getting social media
at least until high school.
Both kids, they accepted that.
And my daughter,
when she was in seventh grade,
she said that she was actually glad
she wasn't on Instagram
because she could see
what it does to girls.
It's a terrible thing to take
11 and 12-year-old girls
and make them be conscious
of their face, their skin, their body,
constantly, all day long,
having people comment on it.
It's a horrible thing to do to girls.
EH: I want to close on a story
that you have told about your son, Max,
that I think illustrates the kind of world
that you're ultimately advocating for.
Tell us about his walks home
and what happened eventually.
JH: Because my wife and I got to know
a woman named Lenore Skenazy,
who wrote a book called "Free Range Kids,"
I recommend this to everybody,
"Free Range Kids."
EH: I do too. I'm also a big fan of it.
JH: Oh good, good.
You said you have three daughters?
EH: Yes, and they all walk themselves
to school and walk home every day.
JH: Fantastic.
EH: Good luck to them.
I have no idea what's happening
in those two or three blocks.
JH: And that's really important
that you don't have an idea.
So because we read Lenore's book
and we know her,
we encouraged Max to walk to school
a year or two before
everybody else was walking.
And this is in Greenwich Village,
right here in New York City.
It's a safe neighborhood
in terms of crime.
But there's some busy streets to cross.
But Max is really good at that,
as I was when I was seven,
eight, nine, 10 years old.
So we let him walk to school.
And the first time we let him walk,
we were terrified.
And we were watching the blue dot
on the phone because we could track him.
The next day we watched again.
And I think we might
have watched a third day.
But here's the thing about anxiety.
The way you get rid of it
is by exposing yourself to the stimulus
and then nothing bad happens
and by Pavlovian processes,
the anxiety drops.
So we trusted him, and he quickly
learned the subway system,
he's just amazing as a navigator.
I think the story you're referring to
is that then, when he was 13,
he got really into tennis.
And I took him to the US Open
when he was 12 and then again at 13.
And he really wanted to go
to a night game.
And that would mean he'd have
to come home very, very late.
He loved going out to Queens alone.
We let him do that during the day,
but he wanted to go out to a night game.
And, you know, we were a little
nervous about that.
But we thought, OK, you know,
what would Lenore say?
And we said, OK.
So he went out and the game, you know,
tennis games, sometimes
they go really late.
This was a really late game.
And so he's coming home on the subway.
And there's a huge crowd,
everyone's happy,
they're all out together.
He gets on the subway, it comes back.
And when he tries to transfer,
I forget which line it was,
somewhere in Manhattan,
you get from Queens into Manhattan,
then he had to transfer
to go south to Greenwich Village.
That train wasn’t running.
And here it is, it’s like
one in the morning.
And so what does he do?
Well he goes upstairs,
and he hails a yellow cab,
which he had never done before.
Now I had shown him how to do it,
but he'd never done it
on his own without me.
But he just went up,
hailed a cab and came home.
And he was nervous, he was.
But that's the thing,
because he was nervous, when he succeeded,
it just changed him.
And this is what I really want to convey.
We have to get over our own anxieties
and trust our kids to be
competent human beings,
just as we were at that age.
And it's hard at first,
but by the third try,
it actually gets easy.
And then your kids flourish, they grow,
they become more confident,
and they're going to be much less
subject to anxiety disorders
if you give them independence.
EH: Well, Jon Haidt, those are all
the questions that I have
for our conversation without the audience.
But there are just audience
questions piling up.
So I'm going to jump right into them.
The first is,
"Is there anything we can do
to raise the smartphone issue politically?
Because it would be great to know
whether politicians around the world
would want to address this
at a national level?"
JH: Yes, this is what's so exciting.
This is the least polarized,
most bipartisan issue that there is.
It’s incredible, because wherever you go,
red state or blue state, you know,
Democrat or Republican in Congress,
almost all of them are parents.
Most politicians are parents.
In so many countries,
leaders are getting out in front,
and they get massive support.
So actually, it's not a risky position.
And they're actually making changes.
So I'd urge everyone,
talk to your legislators,
let them know you support KOSA,
the Kids Online Safety Act.
Actually, the Senate passed it
almost unanimously.
It was like 97 to three.
But I'm very excited about this.
And I think the phone-free schools
is the place where it started.
A whole bunch of states have already said
they're going to go phone-free statewide.
Los Angeles School District
announced it a month ago;
New York City is going
to announce it very soon.
So I'm actually really optimistic
that at least school districts
and states are going to go
phone-free in school.
EH: On the subject of schools,
we have a few questions
from educators who are on with us.
Bradley says, "I'm a teacher.
How can I implement
cell phone restrictions
and talk to families about this
without sounding too ivory-tower-esque?
Or like I'm telling parents
how to raise their children?"
JH: So first let's distinguish
between what are you saying
about phones in school
and what are you saying
about phones at home?
Now you’ve always had the right
to talk about what to do at school.
Parents respect that.
And I guarantee you
other teachers in your school
and your principal probably
are reading about this.
So if you raise the subject, if you say,
"Hey, can we go phone-free?"
you're going to find a lot
more support than you expect,
because things are really different
than they were six months ago.
That's the first thing.
You can definitely go
phone-free in school.
We're seeing schools
all around the country saying
this is such a catastrophe for learning.
We see it in test scores,
we see it in discipline.
We're dealing with it at school
by going phone-free.
Here's the new policy.
And in addition, I hope you'll consider
rolling back the technology,
giving kids a more play-based childhood,
not giving them a phone so early.
So I think we are seeing that happen.
The key, again, is collective action.
You're going to find a lot more allies
now than you would have a year ago.
EH: Amber asks, "I am an educator,
and I'd like to know if Mr. Haidt
recommends any specific activities
or strategies for educators to help undo
some of the negative effects
of our students childhoods?"
JH: Oh yes, there's an amazingly
powerful one which costs zero dollars
and is incredibly effective.
It’s called the “Let Grow Experience.”
So I was so taken
with Lenore Skenazy's work
that I and a few others cofounded
an organization called Let Grow.
So if you go to letgrow.org,
you can sign up,
you sign up there to download the kit
for the Let Grow experience.
You can do this at home too,
but it's especially powerful
if you do it as a school.
So let's imagine a third-grade class.
All the third graders,
let’s say, or second graders
say we’re doing the Let Grow Experience.
So you give them mimeograph, whatever,
a printout of the instructions,
the kid takes it home.
Basically, it's pick something
to do by yourself
that you've never done before by yourself.
Work it out with your parentsm
and then do it.
And so it's something like,
I've never walked the dog
or I've never walked to a store,
I've never been out.
So, you know, if there's a store
that's three blocks away
that you're seven or eight-year-old
can walk to, that would be an ideal one.
But let them pick, you know.
So they pick something,
and then they do it.
And then they come into class.
And let’s say you do one of these a month,
they just say what they did,
they put it up on as a leaf on a tree.
And if you do it every month
for eight months,
you get these eight activities
that you've done by yourself.
And it’s incredibly powerful,
because first of all,
the kids seem to almost grow taller.
They feel much more confident.
But the more important effect,
or as important,
is what it does to the parents.
Because the parents are so afraid, like,
well, at what age can I let my kid out?
I don't know, no one else
is doing it until 11,
so we don't know.
But what happens?
Imagine a town in which
all the elementary schools
are doing this in third grade.
Now you've got eight-year-olds
all over the place.
They're walking to the store to get milk,
they're doing errands,
they're outside playing,
they're walking the dog.
Now adults see eight-year-olds outside,
and at that point,
people will stop calling the police
when they see an eight
or nine-year-old outside,
which at present some people do
because they think it's some horrible,
dangerous anomaly.
EH: I did get a bunch
of texts from other parents
when they saw my kids
walking to school alone.
They were like, are you aware of this?
JH: Oh, wow, OK, but look.
But this year, things will be different.
This year they’ll cheer you on
and they’ll do it themselves.
This is the year for collective
action on all these fronts.
EH: Some questions from parents too.
Melissa asks about distinguishing,
do you distinguish
between phones versus iPads?
Because iPads can create
the same kind of issues,
but parents seem to be
more OK with iPads or tablets,
and some schools actually require them,
so I would love your perspective on that.
JH: So from the parents' point of view,
a phone is the worst
because it's the most portable.
A phone is with you all the time,
especially when you're outside the house.
My advice is that nobody give
a smartphone before high school.
An iPad can do all the same stuff
as a phone, it's just less portable.
So I would say again,
don't give your kid their own iPad
that they can hold on to
and customize and communicate
with strangers on and watch porn.
Don't do that either until high school.
Now for you to have an iPad in the house,
your iPad that you give them sometimes,
there's all kinds of good stuff
that they can do.
There's all kinds of good stuff.
And also, let me be very clear,
stories are good, movies are good.
Watching a movie with your kids is great.
It's the 15-second videos
that have no redeeming value
and that I think are really the worst.
That's what I'll be studying next.
So I would say just be careful
of both the addictive nature
and the distracting nature
of these things.
So a screen isn't going
to hurt the kid necessarily.
But it's the addictive possibilities.
EH: Sarah asks, what kind
of advice do you have
for parents with younger kids
if they have already
given the kids smartphones?
Do you have any advice about the removal
process or the weaning?
JH: My advice is, if you try
to pull it out by yourself,
it's going to be very painful.
But if you and four other families
pull it out at the same time
and you give them something in return,
it's going to be joyous.
Yes, they'll resist,
but let's look at the difference.
In one case, you gave your kid
an iPhone when she was nine
and she's now 11.
And everyone, everyone has an iPhone,
and they're on it all day long.
Now if you take your kid off,
you're condemning your kid
to social death.
So that's a very hard situation.
But let's suppose you gave your kid
a phone when she's nine
and now she's 11,
and most of her friends
are on Instagram too.
But you go to --
you talk with the parents
of her three best friends,
and you say, "You know,
I think we made a mistake.
What do you think?"
And if they agree,
then what you can do is you can say,
“We’re taking back the smartphone.
Here’s a flip phone or a light phone
or something else.
You’ll get a smartphone
when you’re in high school.
You can still do a lot
of the same stuff on a computer.
You still have a laptop or something.
So it’s not as though you’re not going
be able to do these things,
but we don't think you should have this
with you all the time everywhere.
And your three best friends,
their families are also doing it.
And what we really want is not
to take stuff away from you,
we really want is for you
to have a fantastic childhood.
We want you guys to have fun.
So we're going to start off
by saying every Friday,
you girls are getting together
for a sleepover,
you plan it how you want,
but we're suggesting
that every Friday you guys
get together, have a sleepover,
we'll give you money to go places,
we want you to be with your friends
in the real world."
And the more you give them the opportunity
to hang out and do things,
it's not deprivation.
It's not doors closing,
it's doors opening.
What they're most afraid of
is being alone, being cut off.
So avoid that.
EH: Amy asks, "How do I lead by example?
I want to be a good
role model for my kids,
and I acknowledge that I use
my own phone too much.
I realize I will check my Instagram,
then two seconds later, check it again.
Why am I checking it again?” she says.
But how does she lead by example?
JH: So you know, when your kids
are infants and toddlers,
they are copying you,
they're looking for examples to copy.
So do be careful
when you're with toddlers.
You really need to do
a lot of eye contact.
Don't do the continuous partial attention.
Young kids, they really need to develop
that sense of mutual gaze and interaction.
Teenagers are not really copying you.
So I would say insist
on really good family norms
and then honor those norms.
And that means, like, in my family,
we have an absolute rule
no phones at the table,
no matter how important it is for you
to look up this fact
relevant to the conversation,
don't go get your phone and look it up.
That's just the rule, no phone,
we do not bring phones to the table.
And they have to be out
of the bedroom at a certain time,
put them on the counter
in the kitchen charging at 10 o'clock
or whatever the time is
you pick for your family.
So definitely establish
family norms that you respect
and then make those stick.
But don't expect
that your kid is copying you.
If you stop checking
Instagram all the time,
is your kid going to say,
"Oh well, I'll stop."
No, they're completely addicted.
They're socially addicted.
They have to do it
because everyone else is doing it,
not because you're doing it.
EH: Last couple of questions.
Isha asks, "What are the two
most essential changes
we can implement in our daily lives now,
so that there will be
less damage to our own
and younger generations' mental health?"
JH: The number one thing that you can do
is regain control of your attention.
What I found when I began
teaching undergrads
is that most of them,
not all, but most of them,
have given up all of their free attention.
If they're in the elevator,
they're doing this because that's like
60, 90 seconds, they're doing this.
They never have a moment to think.
They can't daydream.
They can't meditate.
And so what I start with
at the very beginning of the class
is let's regain control of your attention.
It's your most precious commodity.
So shut off almost all notifications.
Do not get alerts from any newspaper
or magazine or anything else.
You don't need alerts.
Move social media off your phone
onto your computer only,
and then eventually,
maybe even off your computer.
And a lot of them are gaining
three to five hours a day.
They're regaining three
to five hours a day.
What do they do?
They say, "Now I can do my homework.
And it's actually not hard anymore.
And I have time to read a book
or I have time to talk to a friend
or I have time to play guitar.”
So regaining control of your attention
is where a lot of this starts.
I'd say read Cal Newport,
I assign the book "Deep Work."
It’s a fantastic book,
and it’ll really change the way you see
what's happening to us adults.
EH: OK, let's end
on a question from Kathleen.
“Since your book release and tours,
so following the release,
are you more or less hopeful
about your collective action
proposals catching on?"
JH: I am wildly more optimistic.
I'm optimistic by nature,
but I've been working on democracy
issues since the early 2000s,
and I'm not optimistic there.
I mean, the problems are huge,
and I don’t know the answers.
And that's what my next book
is going to be on.
But on this one, on can we roll back
the phone-based childhood,
I was kind of optimistic last year,
and now I am just wildly optimistic
because it's happening.
It's happening at lightning speed.
I can't believe how fast it's happening.
The number of schools,
of states, of countries
that have acted in the last
six months is mindblowing.
I've never seen anything like it.
That's especially the schools
and governments.
Every day, I’m getting emails
from parents saying, “Thank you.
My friends and I, we did
a reading group on the book,
and now we're all doing this together.
And all the families at the
end of our street,
and the kids are playing,
and they’re riding their bicycles.”
So it's not as though our children
have somehow biologically forgotten
how to ride a bicycle.
And they're still thrilled to be out
from under your thumb.
They're thrilled to have
some independence.
So this is happening.
We don't need everybody,
but if we get most people,
we solve this problem.
EH: Thank you for being so witty
and wise, Jonathan Haidt.
And thank you, TED Members for being here
and for your involvement.
As a nonprofit organization,
all of TED's work
is made possible in part by you.
So thank you so much
to the TED Membership community.
And that is it for the Book Club
for this time, see you next month.
JH: Thanks so much, Elise.
[Want to support TED?]
[Become a TED Member!]
[Learn more at ted.com/membership]