[JauntyHatAngle]

I find these studies specifically frustrating because they don't answer the most interesting question - is it damaging if your caregiver uses phone a lot but remains responsive.

This study specifically excludes it, and fair enough when being honest about the statistical inference and not overreaching, but that is the question I find most interesting as someone who uses my phone to get away from my desk but keep work going so I can spend time with my kids while doing my job.

One outcome would be this is damaging and worse than just not spending time until after work, the other result would say this is a beneficial arrangement.

[watwut]

If you use the phone a lot, you are not generating any initiative on your own and are not reponsive to small initiations you dont notice. You are responsive to when kid explicitely comes to you.

Or otherwise said, if you are on the phone a lot, you are creating a barrier to interaction and people (both kids and adults) will eventually end up tired of trying and having less reciprocation.

If you are not physically there, it is actually less frustrating to others then if you create a barrier while being there.

[yoz-y]

The signal is also clear when interacting with adults: the people “over there” are more important.

These days I was “on call” at home and had to be able to answer my phone urgently. And I hated the fact that I needed to glance at my phone at every notification when talking with other people. Truly just having the damn thing is socially damaging.

[jappgar]

Same is true if you're reading a newspaper

[Insanity]

Ah yes, remember how back in the day people spent about 6-8 hours reading the newspaper. /s

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

They watched the news. I just came back from holidays in Italy from my family, and they would watch the news from 3 different channel the entire meal. The meal lasted 2 hours each time. (That's 4 hours per day, equivalent to doomscrolling)

And yeah the excuse to "stay with the family" is still there, except me and my wife refused to force our kids on the table: the kids will stay at the table if you talk with them, otherwise it's your (grandparents) fault

[acessoproibido]

You have a point but as a kid I would definitely spend that much time reading (mostly novels but also newspapers).

I was definitely not present or available when reading.

I think this is all a very complex topic and the desire to find a clearcut simple answer is more damaging than helpful

[ElevenLathe]

Between the morning/evening news, a sports game or TV movie, reading the newspaper, and a bit of novel reading, my parents in the 90s were just as physically-available-but-in-their-own-world as somebody scrolling TikTok for 4-5 hours a day. I think the difference is that reading the newspaper isn't literally a dopamine-fueled addiction and turning the page in a novel isn't the psychological equivalent of pulling a slot machine lever.

We have lots of evidence about how harmful it is to have parents that are in the throes of gambling addiction. Folks, it's not good for the children. It's in fact pretty bad, even if they don't gamble away the home equity and the college fund.

[calvinmorrison]

> turning the page in a novel isn't the psychological equivalent of pulling a slot machine lever.

Tom Clancy begs to differ. Paperbacks are always exciting

[jappgar]

The losers spending 8hrs of free time on their phone were just watching TV before all this. Bad parents are not a novel invention.

[concinds]

We focus too much on details and not the overall picture.

If you're a parent, one factor matters more than any other: the parents' emotional health determines the children's emotional health. Whether the parents have secure attachment, any intimacy/trust issues, high or low self-esteem, anxious or not, self-aware, how repressed they are, how comfortable with their own and others' emotions...

If a parent is uncomfortable with their thoughts/emotions and compensates with digital distractions, the issue isn't the phone. The media obsesses too much over symptoms and not causes.

[ramblenode]

> is it damaging if your caregiver uses phone a lot but remains responsive.

> but that is the question I find most interesting as someone who uses my phone to get away from my desk but keep work going so I can spend time with my kids while doing my job.

This is probably more relevant to people who are using their phones for passive entertainment than work. The difference is that your kids are more engaging than your work, so your attention will naturally be pulled toward your kids, whereas parents who are scrolling social media or playing games are going to be more drawn to their phones and are going to have punctuated and shallow interactions with their kids.

Personally, I don't think I've ever observed someone who was actively engaged with their phone who was also fully engaged with the people around them.

[interludead]

For a lot of parents, the phone may actually be what lets them be physically around their kids more

[Obscurity4340]

How do your kids feel abot it or have they expressed any frustration with your divided attention?

[JauntyHatAngle]

It's not always obvious but the bit that is clear is it's hard to delineate "dad is working so don't interrupt him" for on-call incidents etc vs "dad is looking at cat videos". They look the same and it's pretty clearly confusing because it's a malleable boundary.

In terms of attention I actually find it pretty easy to identify their cues even when on my phone. It's more of a general feel of how much I've played with them vs solo play and when they want to hang out they will walk over and make it clear. Plus you are always watching them.

[halfmatthalfcat]

Moreso they are interested in the phone because we are but I don't necessary sense frustration. Especially if you are "attentive" in that you are willing to context switch back to your kids immediately, I think they see it as another "thing" like a toy or some distraction outside.