Posts Tagged ‘iPhone’

iGEN

April 11, 2019

iGEN is the title of a new book by Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. The subtitle is “Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. iGEN is the smartphone generation. HM is a member of the Boomer generation. Generation X followed the Boomers around 1964. The Millenials were the generation born in the 1980s and early 1990s, Dr. Twenge noted around 2012 seeing large abrupt shifts in teens behavior and emotional states.

This iGEN generation was born in 1995 and later. They grew up with cell phones, had an Instagram page before they started high school, and could not remember a time before the internet. The oldest member of iGEN were early adolescents when the iPhone was introduced in 2007 and high school students when the iPad was introduced in 2010. The i in the names of these devices stands for Internet. The internet was commercialized in 1995. So this generation is named after the iPhone. According to a fall 2015 marketing survey, two out of three US teens owned an iPhone. A 17-year old interviewed in American Girls said, “You have to have an iPhone. It’s like Apple has a monopoly on adolescence.

The iGEN is the first generation for whom internet access has been constantly available, right there in their hands. Whether their smartphone is a Samsung and their tablet a Kindle, these young people are all iGen’ers. Even lower income teens from disadvantaged backgrounds spend just as much time online as those with more resources. The average teen checks her phone more than eighty times a day.

Dr. Twenge writes, “technology is not the only change shaping this generation. The i in iGEN represents the individualism its members take for granted, a broad trend that grounds their bedrock sense of equality as well as their reaction to traditional social rules. It captures the income inequality that is creating a deep insecurity among iGEN’ers, who worry about doing the right things, to become financially successful, to become a “have” rather than a “have not.” Due to these influences and many others, iGEN is distinct from every previous generation in how its members spend their time, how they behave, and their attitudes toward religion, sexuality, and politics. They socialize in completely new ways, reject once sacred social taboos, and want different things from their lives and careers. They are obsessed with safety and fearful of their economic futures, and they have no patience for inequality based on gender, race or sexual orientation, They are at the forefront of the worst mental health crisis in decades, with rates of teen depression and suicide skyrocketing since 2011. Contrary to the prevalent idea that children are growing up faster than previous generations did, iGENers are growing up more slowly: 18-year olds now act like 15-year-olds used to, and 13-year-olds like 10-year olds. Teens are physically safer than ever, yet they are more mentally vulnerable.”

Dr Twenge draws from four large, nationally representative surveys of 11 million Americans since the 1960s and identifies ten important trends shaping iGEN’ers:

The extension of childhood into adolescence.

The amount of time they are really spending on their phones—and what that has replaced.

The decline in in-person social interaction.

The sharp rise in mental health issues.

The decline in religion.

The interest in safety and the decline in civic involvement

New attitudes towards work.

New attitudes toward sex, relationships, and children.

Acceptance, equality and free speech debates.

Independent political views.

Not all these changes are the result of the new technology. It is interesting to look at which changes and to what extent they are the result of new technology, and what is responsible for other changes.

Future posts on these issues will follow.

Some Thoughts on Privacy and Data Security

March 2, 2016

The current iPhone controversy regarding whether Apple should be required to unencrypt the phone of the California terrorist shooters to enable the identification of potential future terrorists motivated this post.  This information could potentially save an unknown number of lives.  The fear is that personal privacy could be compromised.

I find irony in the way the public regards personal privacy.  On networks such as Facebook detailed personal information is published.  I frequently wonder why people regarded this information of being of any interest to other people.  We frequently read how this information is used against people to preclude employment or to embarrass them.  Yet when the government wants access to information for purposes of national security and to obtain information that could save lives, there is a large degree of push back.

I perceive some personal conceit in this concern.  Why do people think the government would have any interest in them. Personally, I would be flattered to learn that I was under surveillance and to think that the government regarded me as that important.  And I know that they will find nothing to make me personally liable.

But apparently people fear that they have data that the government can use against them.  They perceive the government as evil and they want laws to protect themselves against this evil government.  But it would be the government that enforces these laws.  So why regard  this evil government as being trustworthy.  I do not think it would be difficult to find laws in totalitarian  states that protect their citizens, but which are never enforced.

And why be concerned only about governments?  I believe that business has more data and will always have more data on me than the government.  There are also individuals who can access information and demand payment or threaten to release information.

Focusing on collection will not work.  Laws should be passed on how this information is used.  Should information be used to embarrass or cause financial loss, the laws should carry severe penalties against persons or organizations, including government.  Legitimate uses such as prosecuting criminals or preventing terrorist acts would be exempted.  Today criminals are released because of the way information was collected.  This is wrong and is due to the locus of the laws.  Again, laws should be focused on how information is used rather than how information is collected.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.