全天候一镜通用_全天候：取消“屏幕时间”的情况

全天候一镜通用

There are two little words that create an outsized amount of anxiety for parents. Hearing “screen time” triggers feelings of guilt and anxiety — and googling it leads to nothing but confusion. The keywords pull up an information overload: news outlets offer up competing headlines that leave parents guessing, and experts can’t seem to agree on the actual effect of time spent with screens. As a parent — and the founder of a tech company for kids — I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about screen time, and here’s my conclusion: It’s time to scrap the term entirely. Let’s throw a retirement party for screen time, eat some cake — and then give our children the chance to have a more productive relationship with technology.

有两个小词会给父母带来极大的焦虑。 听到“屏幕时间”会引发内和焦虑感，而对其进行谷歌搜索只会导致混乱。 关键字增加了信息的负担：新闻媒体提供了竞争激烈的头条新闻，让父母猜测，而专家们似乎在屏幕上花费的时间的实际效果上无法达成共识。 作为父母，也是一家儿童科技公司的创始人，我花了很多时间思考屏幕时间，这是我的结论：现在是时候完全废除这个词了。 让我们举办一场退休晚会，放假时间，吃点蛋糕-然后让我们的孩子有机会与技术建立更富有成效的关系。

You may be wondering why I’m hung up on the semantics. Well, I believe the keywords are attached to an antiquated way of thinking about technology, and this creates real problems for busy parents. Somewhere between helping with homework and dashing to music lessons, we need to try and find reasonable, rational advice for incorporating technology into our kids’ lives — and all we get is screen time panic. As a father to two young children, I understand the struggle well. I even wrote an entire book, Screen Captured, in an effort to help parents cut through the digital noise and feel more confident about introducing tech to their kids. But how in the world did screen time become so confusing? In a search for answers, I took a look at the history of the term itself to try and figure out how it became so loaded. And, I became more convinced than ever that it’s no longer useful in the conversation about kids and technology.

您可能想知道为什么我对语义不满意。 好吧，我相信这些关键字附加在过时的技术思考方式上，这给忙碌的父母带来了真正的问题。 在帮助完成家庭作业和听音乐课之间的某个地方，我们需要尝试寻找合理，合理的建议，以将技术融入我们孩子的生活中，而我们所得到的只是屏幕时间的恐慌。 作为两个孩子的父亲，我非常了解这场斗争。 我什至写了整本书《 Screen Captured》 ，以帮助父母消除数字噪音，并为向孩子们介绍技术感到更有信心。 但是世界上的放映时间如何变得如此令人困惑呢？ 在寻找答案的过程中，我查看了该术语本身的历史，试图弄清楚它是如何加载的。 而且，我比以往任何时候都更加确信，它在有关孩子和技术的对话中不再有用。

屏幕时间是多少？ (What is screen time, really?)

Words carry meaning beyond their dictionary definitions. Whenever they’re used in writing or speech, they pick up nuance and connotation — and sometimes even end up meaning something completely different than when they started. (Just look at the definition for “literally” if you need confirmation.) Language is organic and ever-changing, so it’s not unusual that the words “screen time” have come to carry a lot of weight.

单词的含义超出了字典的定义范围。 每当他们在写作或演讲中使用它们时，它们都会产生细微差别和内涵-有时甚至会产生与开始时完全不同的含义。 (如果需要确认，只需看一下“字面上”的定义 。)语言是有机的并且不断变化，因此“屏幕时间”一词变得很重要。

In his book The New Childhood: Raising Kids to Thrive in a Connected World, Jordan Shapiro dissects the term. He explains how screen time used to measure how many frames a movie star’s face appeared in a particular movie. It was something that actors wanted more of. But, according to Shapiro, the term took on a negative connotation in 1991 after Tom Engelhardt used it in an article for Mother Jones Magazine.

约旦·夏皮罗(Jordan Shapiro)在他的《新的童年：在互联世界中养育孩子们成长》一书中对该术语进行了剖析。 他解释了屏幕时间如何用来衡量某位电影明星在某部电影中出现多少帧。 演员想要更多的东西。 但是，根据夏皮罗(Shapiro)的说法，在汤姆·恩格哈特(Tom Engelhardt)在《母亲琼斯杂志》(Mother Jones Magazine)的一篇文章中使用该术语后，该术语在1991年具有否定含义。

Engelhardt was disturbed by the way advertising, entertainment and playtime were blurring together to turn kids into consumers, and when he used screen time, he described three different things: the first refers to the total time kids spend looking at screens. The second described how corporations had begun to fix their gaze on kids, much like moviegoers look at Hollywood’s stars on the big screen. Finally, Shapiro notes how Engelhardt uses screen time to describe the “quick-cut rhythm of film editing and the race-against-the-clock urgency of a video game” that moves faster than real-time — making screen time different from how humans normally experience time.

恩格哈特(Engelhardt)对广告，娱乐和娱乐时间的模糊结合在一起使孩子变成消费者的方式感到不安，当他使用屏幕时间时，他描述了三件事：第一个是孩子花在看屏幕上的总时间。 第二篇描​​述了公司如何开始将目光聚焦在孩子身上，就像电影观众在大屏幕上注视好莱坞的明星一样。 最后，夏皮罗(Shapiro)指出，恩格哈特(Engelhardt)如何使用屏幕时间来描述“电影剪辑的快速节奏和视频游戏的全天候比赛的紧迫性”，其移动速度比实时速度快，从而使屏幕时间不同于人类通常会经历时间。

While the first definition is a simple measurement, the second and third imply something darker. Since Engelhardt redefined screen time in 1991, it has exploded in popular usage. If you search the Google Books archive to see how often screen time appears in print, you’ll see a sharp increase beginning in that same year. Today, screen time is also a practice: a timestamp is the way that most parents and kids relate to technology, no matter the content or activity in question. And, this is deeply bound up in the words themselves.

虽然第一个定义是简单的度量，但是第二个和第三个隐含着更暗的含义。 自从1991年恩格哈特(Engelhardt)重新定义放映时间以来，它的流行用法就爆炸了。 如果您搜索Google图书档案，以查看屏幕时间在印刷版中出现的频率，那么您会发现从同年开始急剧增加。 如今，放映时间也已成为一种惯例：无论涉及的内容或活动如何，时间戳都是大多数父母和孩子与技术联系的方式。 并且，这深深地绑在单词本身中。

恐慌还是不惊慌？ (To panic, or not to panic?)

“I am convinced the devil lives in our phones and is wreaking havoc on our children.” This was the New York Times quote of the day from Athena Chavarria, a former executive assistant at Facebook on October 28th, 2018. It was also used as the sub-headline in the article, “A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley.”

“我坚信魔鬼生活在我们的手机中，并对我们的孩子造成了严重破坏。” 这是《纽约时报》在2018年10月28日的Facebook前执行助理雅典娜·夏瓦里亚(Athena Chavarria)引用的那一天。它还被用作文章“ 关于屏幕和儿童的黑暗共识开始出现”的副标题。在硅谷 。”

This narrative — that the tech elite feel screens are overwhelmingly negative and addictive for kids — is the same one that’s often used to argue against screen time. It implies that the people who work in Silicon Valley know something nefarious that the rest of us don’t. This article begins with an ominous statement: “A wariness that has been slowly brewing is turning into a regionwide consensus: The benefits of screens as a learning tool are overblown, and the risks for addiction and stunting development seem high. The debate in Silicon Valley now is about how much exposure to phones is O.K.” Scary, right? But, with any article on screen time, it’s important to ask a few questions before overhauling your own household rules.

这种叙述(即技术精英觉得屏幕对孩子来说绝对是消极的和令人上瘾的)，这种说法经常被用来反对屏幕时间。 这意味着在硅谷工作的人知道某些恶毒，而我们其他人却不知道。 本文以不祥的声明开头：“一直在酝酿中的谨慎情绪正在变成全地区的共识：屏幕作为学习工具的好处被夸大了，成瘾和发育迟缓的风险似乎很高。 现在在硅谷的辩论是，可以接触多少手机才可以。”吓人吧？ 但是，对于任何有关屏幕时间的文章，在彻底修改自己的家庭规则之前，请先问几个问题，这一点很重要。

First, who came to this consensus? And how? In this particular article, only a handful of individuals are quoted and there are no scientific references — the evidence is qualitative, not quantitative. When you read the parent’s quotes, many are describe setting boundaries around tech use, not enforcing outright bans. And there is only one interviewee who describes screen time limits that are more restrictive than the accepted pediatric guidelines.

首先，谁达成了这个共识？ 如何？ 在这篇特别的文章中，只引用了少数几个个体，没有科学依据-证据是定性的，而不是定量的。 当您阅读父母的报价时，许多描述是围绕技术使用设置边界，而不是强制实施全面禁止。 而且，只有一位受访者描述的筛查时间限制比公认的儿科指南更具限制性。

And, this is just one of many panic-inducing articles on the subject. Stories like this layer on top of screen time, inflaming the term and giving it the anxious quality it has today. Adding to an already-divisive debate, alarmist headlines make a confusing topic that much more frustrating for parents. Screen time puts a laser focus on measuring and restricting the duration you spend with screens, and families desperately need an approach to technology that has more nuance.

并且，这只是关于该主题的许多引起恐慌的文章之一。 诸如此类的故事都出现在屏幕上，这激怒了该术语，并赋予了它今天的焦虑品质。 除了已经引起争论的辩论之外，危急的新闻头条使这个令人困惑的话题更令父母感到沮丧。 屏幕时间使人们着重于测量和限制您在屏幕上花费的时间，而家庭迫切需要一种具有更多细微差别的技术。

我已经达到了“播放时间”的限制 (I’ve hit my “screen time” limit)

I’ve written before about how screen time rhetoric has devolved to a point where there’s infighting between the experts. Parents are then left to determine whether screen time is as bad as heroin or as harmless as a potato. I believe that’s oversimplified on both counts — and I think the term screen time has accrued so much baggage that it’s time to move on from it entirely. It’s time to give families a different way to think and talk about screens in their homes.

我之前写过关于屏幕时间修辞如何演变到专家之间发生内f的观点。 然后让父母来确定筛选时间是否像海洛因一样糟糕，还是像马铃薯一样无害 。 我认为这在两个方面都过分简化了，而且我认为“屏幕时间”一词已经累累了，现在是时候完全摆脱它了。 现在该给家庭提供一种不同的方式来思考和谈论家中的屏幕。

The more we learn about technology, the more we realize that screen time is missing the mark. Just think of all the different things kids can do with technology: connect with far-away family, read books, write code, design and create works of art, cultivate their interests and pursue their passions. These are beneficial activities, but the practice of screen time-stamping treats all of those things the same way it treats scrolling social media or watching #fail videos.

我们对技术的了解越多，我们就越会意识到屏幕显示时间不足。 试想一下孩子可以用技术做的所有不同事情：与遥远的家庭联系，阅读书籍，编写代码，设计和创作艺术品，培养他们的兴趣并追求他们的激情。 这些是有益的活动，但屏幕时间戳记的实践将所有这些事情与对待滚动社交媒体或观看#fail视频的方式相同。

Dr. Max Davie is the Officer for Health Improvement at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. He described some of the drawbacks to time-stamping technology, going so far as to call it a fool’s errand. But what should parents do instead? According to Dr. Davie, they should “ask if their child is engaging in these very compelling activities to the detriment and exclusion of the things that you as a family want to do.” As a parent, when I read something like that, I see a glimmer of hope. I see a more fruitful way to look at technology that centers on balance.

Max Davie博士是皇家儿科与儿童健康学院的健康改善官。 他描述了时间戳技术的一些缺点，甚至称其为傻瓜 。 但是父母应该怎么做呢？ 根据戴维博士的说法，他们应该“询问孩子是否参加了这些非常引人入胜的活动，从而损害和排斥了您家庭想要做的事情。” 作为父母，当我读到类似的文章时，我看到了一线希望。 我看到了一种更富有成果的方法来研究以平衡为中心的技术。

一个新主张 (A new proposition)

When you really dig into about screen time guidelines out there, most of them aren’t warning us about the screens themselves. They are warning us about obesity, eyesight problems, interrupted sleep, impaired cognition. They make us afraid of the negative outcome, but that only happens when screen time is out of balance with other areas of our lives.

当您真正深入了解屏幕时间指南时，大多数指南并没有警告我们有关屏幕本身的信息。 他们警告我们有关肥胖，视力问题，睡眠中断，认知障碍。 他们使我们担心负面的结果，但这只会在放映时间与我们生活的其他方面失去平衡时才会发生。

Instead of focusing on duration, we should think more critically about what kids are doing on screens — and think of screen activities in the broader context of a kid’s life. We need to pay attention to whether or not it’s detracting from other things in their lives. For me, there’s a difference between positive, skill-building screen time and the manipulative mechanisms by which kids become screen captured. Three hours spent learning to write code shouldn’t be treated the same way as three hours on TikTok. That’s just illogical — and that’s where screen time fails us.

除了关注持续时间之外，我们应该更批判性地考虑孩子在屏幕上正在做什么—在更广泛的孩子生活中考虑屏幕活动。 我们需要注意它是否削弱了他们生活中的其他事物。 对我而言，积极的，技能培养的屏幕时间与孩子捕捉屏幕的操纵机制之间存在差异。 花时间学习三个小时的代码不应与在TikTok上花费三个小时的方法一样。 那只是不合逻辑的-这就是屏幕时间使我们失败的原因。

Lately, I’ve seen a growing momentum to look at the nuance of time spent with technology. A global pandemic changed the way we look at screen time almost overnight, and now there’s a growing number of articles interrogating the effectiveness of screen time limits. When school, work and socializing all shifted online, our relationship to (and appreciation for) screens changed. It’s time to acknowledge all the positive things that come with technology and find a way to strike a screen-life balance. And at the very least, it’s time to retire screen time, pack away all that baggage and start fresh with a more productive conversation.

最近，我看到了越来越多的动力来关注花费在技术上的时间的细微差别。 全球大流行几乎在一夜之间改变了我们看电影时间的方式，现在有越来越多的文章质疑电影时间限制的有效性。 当学校，工作和社交活动全部转移到网上时，我们与屏幕(和欣赏屏幕)的关系发生了变化。 现在该承认技术带来的所有积极影响，并找到一种平衡屏幕寿命的方法 。 至少到了该退休的时候了，收拾行囊，开始更具生产力的对话。

翻译自: https://medium.com/kinzoo/off-the-clock-the-case-for-retiring-screen-time-35a80ab3295c

全天候一镜通用