Illustration by Ariana Yang (my amazing middle schooler :-)

I published a new commentary in Star Tribune (below is the original submission). 
https://www.startribune.com/smartphones-and-kids-its-all-about-timing/601368513

When should I give my kid a smartphone?

This is a multi-billion-dollar question, considering 95% of US teens ages 13 to 17 now own a smartphone. While there is no definitive answer, what I can share are a few things I learned from my own and others’ research that I wish I had known years ago. 

First, unlimited screen time is a “digital drug” and has real consequences on our kids’ health. Brain imaging research has shown that extensive screen exposure, like six weeks of heavy video game playing, can alter (or more precisely damage) the brain, in similar ways to those seen in drug addiction. In fact, a glowing screen is so powerful that researchers experimented with a virtual reality video game to help burn victims with pain management and found the effects were comparable to morphine, a real drug. 

As parents, we are too familiar with the recent surge in cognitive and mental disorders like ADHD, anxiety, autism, depression, aggression and even psychosis. Clinical evidence has linked these with screen exposure. Phone use has been shown to negatively affect academic performance, with socially disadvantaged kids more adversely affected.

Second, mere screen exposure can cause harm regardless of content. Dr. Dunkley, author of Reset Your Child’s Brain, suspects screen exposure is an underlying cause of many disorders. Flashing screens trigger fight-or-flight reactions and overstimulate a developing brain, putting it under chronic stress. It can cause biological changes like directing blood to the “animal” brain and away from the “human” brain. As parents, we often think interactive screen time is better than passive screen time. It turns out interactive screen time causes more harm because it creates greater hyperarousal and dysregulation.

Third, there is convincing evidence that exposure to media violence leads to aggression and desensitization to violence, particularly in children. According to Dr. Nicholas Kardaras, author of Glow Kids, violent video gaming is associated with poor school performance, increased aggression, and decreased empathy. While most kids won’t commit actual violence thankfully, they are more likely to engage in “daily aggressions,” saying or doing things insensitive to others’ feelings. As the mother of a middle school student, I hear about it on a regular basis.

Now we are aware of the potential harm of screen exposure, what can we do? First and foremost, do not blame your kid, and do not blame yourselves as parents. Behind the screens are big tech companies and their top talents who use everything we know about human psychology and the most advanced algorithms to have our kids engaged or more precisely hooked on these glowing devices. It has not been a fair fight. 

A social problem requires a social solution, which is why I decided to write this piece to raise awareness. As a mother, several things have helped me. ​The first is a tech reset, especially if you feel screens have turned your used-to-be-sweet kids into little monsters when you try to take away their devices. You will be amazed at how big a difference it can make. The second is parenting 101: do as you preach. When we are mindful of our interactions with phones, we provide better attention to our kids and are better role models. The third is to allow our kids to be bored. In my research, boredom was named as the #1 trigger of phone use. According to Dr. Kardaras, learning to deal with boredom is “the most developmentally … important skill” for kids. Compared to the screen world where exciting things happen all the time, the real world is dull and boring. Being able to live with ordinary moments and appreciate them is key to a happy life.  

Back to the opening question of when to give kids a smartphone, in my house, the answer is “not until high school” because I observed anecdotally in my research that kids who received a smartphone after high school tend to have a healthier relationship with it. In contrast, middle schoolers have few productive needs for a smartphone, meaning they often use it to waste time.

What about the common refrain “All my friends have one, why can’t I?” My answer is that many people doing the same thing does not mean it is good or wise. What is common is not necessarily normal or beneficial.

I published a new commentary in Star Tribune. 
https://www.startribune.com/preserving-humanity-in-the-ai-era/601229632

Readers need to login to read the full article. Thanks to Star Tribune's friendly terms of publication, I am including the article below for those who don't have an account. 

Preserving Humanity in the AI Era
Yuqing Ren

Humanity is at a crossroads: to AI or not to AI.

Advancements in AI are transforming our world and posing unprecedented challenges, such as massive job displacement. In my undergraduate class on AI, I ask my students: “If one day work becomes optional, how many of you would still choose to work?” The response is typically split between half of the class choosing to work and the other half choosing a different path. In the process, there are often amusing exchanges of looks that seem to ask “What would you do with your time if you don’t work?” or “Don’t you have better things to do with your life?”

This divergence highlights the pivotal nature of the shift we are about to face. AI making human work optional can be a tremendous opportunity for humans to be liberated from work and focus on personal development, and it may also leave many struggling to find meaning and self-worth. Which scenario becomes our future reality depends on our collective values and choices.

Historically, work has been both a necessity and a cornerstone that many rely on for identity, self-worth and social connections. The absence of work leaves a great void that is not easily filled. This void is not just financial, but also emotional and social. A good example is the opioid crisis, which hit the Rust Belt disproportionately hard because it had been devastated by economic decline and job loss associated with the automation of manufacturing jobs. The automation tsunami is now coming after white-collar workers.

If we don’t want history to repeat itself, we need to reconsider our culture and core values. Today’s productivity-driven culture — one that emphasizes efficiency, goal achievements and measurable outcomes — may not serve us well in the coming shift. In such a culture, individual value is often tied to productivity. Individuals who fail to produce measurable outcomes may struggle to feel valued or worthy. Self-worth based on productivity is like a sandcastle built on the beach; it dissipates as soon as productivity goes away.

This productivity-driven culture is a fertile ground for competition. Fierce competition for limited resources and upward-mobility opportunities ultimately leads to involution, when individuals expend increasing efforts without substantial progress. As AI continues to take over work, human workers will feel compelled to work harder to outrun both AI and their peers. Excessive competitive pressure can turn humans into “utility-maximizing machines” who obsess with maximizing productivity and one’s own utility at the cost of other things. These other things — authenticity, care, courage, fairness, kindness, justice, love and social responsibility — are essential to both individual well-being and the well-being of humanity as a whole.

The productivity-oriented culture rewards growth (over maintenance) and doing (over not doing). The problem is that there is no such thing as unlimited growth in life. As Jenny Odell wrote in her book “How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy,” “In the context of health and ecology, things that grow unchecked are often considered parasitic or cancerous.” By pursuing unlimited growth, we are depleting not only our environments but also ourselves.
​
Additionally, globalization exacerbates competition by connecting the world into a tightly coupled system where local occurrences easily and quickly trigger reactions in distant areas, causing a global arms race in AI. I feel and fear that humanity is riding a self-accelerating and self-perpetuating train, and no one is in control or even aware of its destiny.

Collectively, we want to be in control of our destiny. Looking forward, I wish for a society where my students, regardless of their choice to work or not, can have a meaningful life and feel worthy and valued. A society that values not only growth and doing, but also maintenance and just being. A society where our young people can rediscover meaning in learning, work or whatever endeavors they pursue. A society where business decisions are based on not only efficiency and profitability, but also the impact on human workers and users.

Ultimately, I wish for a human-centered society in which humanity not only survives but thrives, with or without the help of AI. Perhaps the decision is not whether to AI, but why AI and how to AI.

Yuqing Ren is associate professor at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. Opinions in this commentary are intended to represent her personal view, not those of the Carlson School or the university.

My first op-ed on Uniquely Human in the AI Era got published by MinnPost.

Special thanks to my colleagues Rose Semenov and Steve Henneberry from the Carlson School of Management Strategic Communications team for their great feedback and help. 

I have been teaching about AI and its business applications to undergraduate, graduate, and executive students since 2018. In the process, I learned a great deal and had the opportunity to reflect upon the long-term impact of AI on not only businesses, but also our society and the future of humanity. I enjoy writing short articles like op-eds to share my thinking with a broader audience.