Is My Smart Phone Hurting Me?

     As a teen, I've grown up with cell phones. I remember as early as elementary school, kids were walking around with phones, but they've been an integral part of our lives. Nowadays, education, entertainment, and communication are at an all-time high because of the mass media that can be spread through technology. As kids become more obsessed with technology, it raises the question of if technology is actually hurting kids? 

    Diving into the first argument, teens aren't as happy as they used to be. Social media has tanked in-person social interaction, which has caused kids to go out less. Rather than meeting up with friends to talk, they can do it from the comfort of their own beds. Teens are also much less likely to get their license now, partially due to not needing to drive as much. What their parents can't do, online apps such as Amazon, Uber, and DoorDash can now deliver right to their doorstep. Nowadays, teens don't need to go out when they can just click a few buttons. Jean Twenge also relates to how teens are working less nowadays, "In earlier eras, kids worked in great numbers eager to finance their freedom or prodded by their parents to earn the value of a dollar. But iGen teens aren't working (or managing their own money) as much. In the late 1970s, 77 percent of high-school seniors worked for pay during the school year; by the mid-2010s, only 55 percent did." Teens also place less significance on working, though this can't be directly attributed to technology. Along with working less, teens are also spending less time on homework and extracurricular activities, which raises the question of what they're doing. Of course, they're on their phones. But the growth of technology hasn't necessarily been bad and isn't the direct correlation to why teens are acting differently than they used to.

    Growing up, we always had technology in the house. I remember the day when we got our first iPad, and my brothers and I would always fight over who could play Angry Birds. As I got older, the need to a personal device became apparent to my parents. I had recently made the jump to middle school in 5th grade (I know that's early, our school was weird), which meant I'd be riding the bus alone for the first time. My parents wanted to make sure I made it every day, so they got me a phone and instructed me to text them whenever I got on the bus. This phone was old, even for its time. The old Samsung still had a leather back, and my parents only allowed me to use the functions, text messages,  phone calls, and YouTube. Everything else was blocked on the phone. I only ever used it when I actually needed to, which was rare. My parents called it the starter phone because it taught us the importance of technology and helped us get a feel of carrying around an expensive item. The summer before 8th grade, I got a new phone that didn't have any limitations, and I was free to do whatever I wanted. But I didn't use it in the way that older people expected teens to use it. None of us did. I find that cyberbullying is extremely rare, and all you need to do to stop it is simply shut your phone off. Social media doesn't feel like a competition, though people do care too much about their appearance. I downloaded Instagram and Snapchat sometime in 8th grade, though I didn't start using them until 10th grade. Even then, I didn't care what other people posted, it helped me discover the world and figure out what was going on globally. I felt more connected because of technology, not hurt by it. 

    To contrast the argument that Twengle made, I believe that teens are actually more busy now they they've ever been, which contributed to all of the problems that she mentions. Now, I'm not sure if this is a national or global phenomenon, but everybody around me is busy with their own lives. Everybody is in sports, clubs, and other extracurriculars nearly the entire year. It's common for a student to be in upwards of 6+ extracurricular activities at a single time. On top of that, we must balance rigorous course schedules and a personal life, which is much more difficult. Nowadays, our life revolves around how much time we have, which is much lower than we would like. The reason why teens don't go out as much to see friends is because it takes time, the same thing with getting food and driving. Why go places when we don't have to? Sure working has been on a decline, and that's one of the arguments that I agree with. As someone who doesn't work during the school year, I don't know how I would physically be able to do so. A daily schedule for me involves: waking up at 7, starting school by 8, eating lunch at 12, working on school again by 1, leaving for practice at 2:30, getting home at 6:30, eating dinner and showering by 7:30 and either doing homework or playing video games until 10, which is when I try to sleep. That is considered an easy day for me too as most Tuesdays, Thursdays, and some Saturdays I have swim meets, which would take up my entire night, and on Wednesdays, I have church, which takes up a large part of my evening. On weekends, I'm volunteering, doing chores, or going out with friends. I think that older generations didn't stress as much about extracurricular activities and homework, which gave them more time to hang out. I don't know how they calculated the data for how much free time iGen has, but it feels skewed in sorts. Maybe they just interviewed the "bad apples" who don't try at school and aren't in extracurricular activities. The reason why kids focus so much on school and activities is to get into college, which has become significantly more important to get a job. Even 30 years ago, people could get a respected job without a college education, but people still went to college for the experience. Nowadays, you are required to have a college degree to get even an unpaid internship. It's harder to get a job now than it ever has been in history, and there are stories all over of people who apply to hundreds of jobs before they even get an interview. Education has become much more important as to even make a living, you need a college degree. As technology advanced, so did education. My parents would always comment how the classes I would take in 8th and 9th grade were similar to the classes they took in their junior and senior years. Sure, I was considered well above average, but compared to the average high school student, I'm not special. I got rejected from many top colleges, where if I had my current stats 20 years ago, I would have certainly been admitted. College has gotten extremely competitive, and ironically, you need to go to a top college to get a fair-paying job. 

    I feel like a lot of the data that Twengle uses in her article is heavily skewed in favor of her argument. She rarely sources where she gets her information from and uses points that don't make sense to support her argument. This argument is supported by Abigail Fagan, who criticized Twengle by saying, "In the introduction to the piece, she notes that this generation has sharply lower rates of alcohol use, teen pregnancies, unprotected sex, smoking, and car accidents than previous generations. This is what a destroyed generation looks like?" Twengle attempts to use these extremely negative actions to support her argument, though these prove that technology has also been improving lives as well. Twengle uses some data properly to support her claim, which makes it more enticing, but I feel like it isn't well supported. Twengle only showed what she believes, rather than comparing it to the other side. Although teens aren't going out as much, it's because of reduced time and increased pressure from school, which would also impact happiness. Fewer teens are working because it's harder to get and maintain a job with the extreme amount of extracurricular activities kids are doing nowadays. While phones and social media have negatively impacted some teens, they've also helped improve the education, communication, and safety of teens. Although Twengle's argument makes points, they're minimally supported with data, and the full picture can't be seen. Her article feels more persuasive, rather than the informative approach that should have been taken.