[wvenable]

My son, for example, has sensory issues and cannot tune out anything. The "you have to practice it" is like telling a paraplegic that if they just exercise more they'd be able to walk. People are different and have different needs.

> And I think that's really, really unhealthy, for them and for the rest of us.

Or maybe it's not. Maybe the rest of the world is unhealthy and this is a way to reclaim some personal healthiness.

[exmadscientist]

I think that's an unusual scenario, and I'd ask you to consider that that's probably not the argument I was making.

Most of the dozens and dozens of people I see in daily life sealed away in their earbud pockets do not appear in any way to need to do that. I am certainly not seeing the full picture of every single person's life, but I do not think that every last one of them is incapable of meaningfully engaging with the world.

[wvenable]

The key word there is appear. How do you know? You're making a lot of assumptions about people and why do things and whether or not it's healthy. You see dozens and dozens people with earphones on at exactly the time when most people don't want to be engaging. Some women put on headphones, often playing nothing, to avoid harassment. But the reasons are endless.

You're assuming all this is "really really unhealthy" but what is the justification for that opinion?

[exmadscientist]

The article is making the case that this is not healthy for society. It is the kind of thing that's fine if 5/100 do it, seriously worrying if 50/100 do, and basically fatal to civilized society if 99/100 people do.

And when I go to the park and have a run, of the 100 people I might see there and on the way, we're closer to 50/100 than 5 or 99. So I think we have a problem.

[wvenable]

If you read the article you'll notice that it's all opinion. The main quote about research is "There is disappointingly little peer-reviewed research on the effects earphones have on our daily lives and interactions." Even the linked "studies" are all correlation and mixed in with COVID.

The flaw in the whole argument is that somehow people are having less "meaningful" conversations because they headphones on. I'm sorry but you're not going to have a meaningful conversation (or any at all) with the 100 people who are also actively running at the park whether or not they had headphones on. I still don't see it as a problem if 100% of the people running had headphones on; they are there to run! It's like saying there's a problem because 50 out of 100 people at the park having running shoes on. If you've pre-decided that running shoes are a problem then that's a big concern otherwise it's just nothing.

For me, if I didn't have headphones on I wouldn't be going for a walk/run at all. That one thing has drastically changed how I approach exercise in general and I would do less without them. That said, I do occasionally enjoy a nice walk/run without any headphones but as the exception rather than the rule.

[MarkusQ]

"When we argue for our limitations, we get to keep them."

-- Evelyn Waugh

Paraplegics don't have the use of their limbs. Acting as if "sensory issues" are in the same category is grossly insensitive.

[wvenable]

Suggesting you can just practice your way out of biological sensory issues is also grossly insensitive; that's why I made that comparison.

Stating that using this kind of technology is "unhealthy" both for a person and society is a pretty bold claim that I think is pretty ridiculous.

[blanched]

Why is it grossly insensitive? Sensory issues are widely documented and studied. It's probably most well known as part of autism, but it's also seen in PTSD, schizophrenia, CTE, etc.

People with these conditions literally cannot learn to tune things out.

I suspect the parent commenter was intentionally vague to avoid derailing the thread into discussing their specifics (many of which are, unfortunately, currently politically charged).