“We Sac­rificed Two Gen­era­tions Because We Didn’t Know How Tech­nol­ogy Works”

– What are the biggest mistakes we make today when we introduce children to technology?

– In my view, the fundamental mistake is black-and-white thinking. In other words, the difficulty we have, in just about every sphere of life, in hitting the middle path. That is only possible through serious intellectual effort, which we very often don’t want to make, and it’s easier to settle on some extreme.

One extreme is demonizing technology. Explaining to children that it will ruin their brains. But a total ban means children end up with no competence in using technology. They are like tribesmen handed a grenade—they have no culture of using it, and sooner or later that grenade will land in their hands. Talking about technology the way we talk about drugs, equating it with something harmful, dangerous, deadly. As a parent, and as a psychologist who has read far too many studies on the effects of overuse on the child’s brain, I tend to slip into this extreme myself.

The other is that technology is something wonderful, the new human playground, the new reality—let the kids loose without supervision.

The supporters of this view say:

“They survived in reality, they’ll survive now too.”

That isn’t true, because biologically humans were not made to thrive in a technological world. We were made to socialize, to get to know ourselves, to get to know the world through our bodies, through play and relationships with other people.

The way forward is surely in searching for some middle, sensible path that makes children neither addicts nor technological idiots. Preparing them to live in a world where technology awaits them… in the good version of the future. In the bad version there won’t be any technology, but for now we maintain a moderate optimism that the world isn’t heading for a sunset, sudden and brutal.

– How are we doing so far?

– In my view, we adults sacrificed two generations because we created something without knowing what it was or how it worked. These children are the victims of our incompetence. Nobody knew; it wasn’t out of malice. Now we know,

no one can say anymore that we adults are unaware of what excessive use of digital devices does to the development of children’s emotional and intellectual apparatus.

– Let’s spell it out anyway. What does it do?

– Technology isn’t one thing. Solving logic problems on a computer, scrolling TikTok and playing games where you walk around killing things are three completely different activities that affect the human brain in different ways. The only thing they have in common is that

they pull you away from the real world and give the central nervous system an unreal arousal—one that real life doesn’t allow with such intensity and duration.

Whatever digital environment you consume, it is built to be stimulating, interesting, attractive, attention-grabbing. The world isn’t like that. It’s gray, slow, boring, inconsistent, arrhythmic. You have to engage with it through willpower for it to become interesting. It doesn’t entertain you on its own; it’s jagged, hard.

That is, the digital amusement park is not the natural habitat of the human brain, and when you live there too long, your brain shifts away from its usual functioning and adapts its structures to it.

It stops dealing with the big picture and starts dealing with a very narrow frame, wherever your focus of attention is. So whether it’s TikTok or a little house-building game, you’re left with a very narrow focus on something that excites you, because it was made for exactly that purpose. You have no need to create something interesting for yourself.

Your brain gets used to the idea that the world is an exciting place, and the only thing you need to develop is the skill of operating within it.

– Our brains are definitely not designed for such challenges…

– Naturally, it works wonders for developing operational skills. Children immersed in the digital have reflexes and short-range cause-and-effect thinking far more developed than those who climb trees all day. The problem is that the world isn’t like that. When you expect it to be a constantly stimulating place, you fail to develop

one of the basic qualities a person must develop in early childhood—the ability to delay gratification.

To know that you have to make an effort here and now, without getting anything, in order to earn some big reward in the future.

It’s connected to everything in our lives! Tidying your room, taking care of your hygiene, studying, not interrupting others. Being able to make an effort toward more meaningful goals, like a diploma, a relationship, friends, a family—a long-term bond that requires some investment.

The ability to delay gratification is trained, like everything in the human brain. And

when you don’t have it, you only make decisions that lead to quick satisfaction, quick stimulation, quick interest, quick fun. That rarely leads to a good life.

The second thing that happens is that you create a brain with a very narrow focus. Reading a book means receiving a new stimulus, a unit of information, but one that enters a field where other units of information are constantly buzzing, giving meaning to the new piece.

A single sentence in a book has absolutely no meaning on its own unless it lands in that half-active, unconsciously active cloud of all the other sentences

you’ve read so far in that book, and of a huge amount of other knowledge about the world, which together create the meaning. Yes, you aren’t thinking about any of those things at the moment, only about the stimulus coming in right now. But it will have no meaning unless it enters an information field that you keep half-active in your mind, so you can picture the world being described, the person speaking, so you can understand why they say it, why they behave that way.

That is the piece of information you’re focused on. Everything else, however, is also active in your head. And this, on the principle of reinforcing neural connections, creates, strengthens, develops and trains your ability to think in context. And thinking in context is another word for what is very fashionable right now and is called “functional literacy.” In other words, when a piece of information arrives, you can grasp how it is interconnected with everything else in the world, which is what actually gives it meaning.

– So reading remains just as important…

– It’s very fashionable to argue about what literature children should read at school. It makes no difference whatsoever! The point is that they read. Whether the story was written by Elin Pelin, the classic Bulgarian writer of village tales, or by a cyberpunk author, whether it’s Drandyo or The Fairy in the Sugar Bowl, here

we’re talking about the functional ability to put information in context—in other words, to understand it.

These are the two main proven problems of overexposing children to digital stimulation. One is that it damages the ability to delay gratification, which hits the emotional apparatus very sharply and seriously. You can’t feel pleasure unless you’re stimulated here and now. You struggle to find meaning in your life, because meaning is most often tied to distant pleasure, not immediate pleasure. You slide very easily into depression and irritability, because you’re used to being constantly “high” on some thrill here and now. That is what happens to the emotional apparatus of children overexposed to digital stimulation. And the other problem is that you lose functional literacy.

– At the same time, we only talk in hours. Until the age of three, they say today, children shouldn’t be exposed to technology at all. But nobody follows that, you can see it everywhere.

– The sad truth is that none of us knows what the right thing is.

We swing between these two extremes—“Anathema!” and “No problemo!”—because there’s very little information. Yes, two generations burned out because of our incompetence in teaching them how to use what we created some 20 years ago. And this generates an enormous amount of anxiety in our part of the field—psychologists, neurologists, doctors, educators, social workers, psychiatrists—because we work with the end product of the mistake. And sometimes it can be very sad.

That’s why prescriptions like this sometimes come out: “No screens until age three.” I followed that rule; until the age of three, my child had watched a total of 15 minutes of cartoons, by accident.

Yet many children who have had digital stimulation from their first days show no symptoms—no damage to the emotional apparatus or to the ability to hold context and make sense of things.

And here it’s a question of the dose.

Research has arrived at a definition of “harmful use” very similar to what is said about harmful use of alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. It is defined as “use that leads to a loss of interest in other, alternative forms of entertainment, to visible withdrawal symptoms when it is taken away, and to an obsessive-compulsive search for the stimulus.”

In other words, behaving the way an addict would, ready to perform heroic feats to get to their substance and visibly suffering when it is taken away. Ready to drop absolutely everything else in life to get it.

That is,

when children give up natural stimuli so they can sink into a digital device, that’s a problem.

This isn’t even so much about how much they’ve been exposed, but about the extent to which they are prone to such compulsive-obsessive behaviors and find it hard to function in this world. For some children it’s an outlet—if they’re more anxious, shy, slower to socialize. The same way alcohol is for many adults—a wonderful escape. They go to a world where they have complete control over what happens and which, on top of that, rewards them, stimulates them, entertains them. For now, that is defined as harmful, dangerous use.

– But it’s also something every parent can assess by the criteria you just described. They sound quite clear.

– Talking sensibly with children is certainly important. My child started: “So-and-so has a phone.” “Rada, the truth is that nobody is more interesting than a phone. Nobody.” “That’s not true, you’re interesting, Mom is interesting.” “Nobody.

The phone has things in it that no single person can give you.

I can’t swallow fire or walk a tightrope strung between two cliffs, and people like that are in your phone. But right now you have far more important things to do. Yes, they aren’t as fun, as easy, as pleasant, but they’re the important things you need to be doing right now. When you’re at school, be with the other kids, not on your phone. So

you learn to make social contacts, to build relationships with other people, to learn to learn from other people.”

In the very early school years, children learn from one another during breaks. Sometimes they even talk about school, about what they’ve learned. These are fundamental, basic skills that everyone will need for the rest of their lives.

– Maybe evolution no longer requires them, maybe this is the natural course of things…

– No. We’re far too tiny to talk about evolution. We live for far too short a time to comment on it. I would rephrase it: perhaps our civilization doesn’t require them. Perhaps

we are currently building a civilization that assumes the right fit for it is an asocial person, prone to depression without stimulation, addicted to arousal, unable to think in context.

But I very much doubt that if we described the end result of hyper-digital people as personalities, anyone would say: “Hey, that’s exactly what we need!”

Rather, the risk—and a recognized one—is that

the new class inequality will be between people who can understand a page of written text and those who can’t.

All this alarm being raised, and all the research being done, costs a lot of money, and it isn’t done out of some higher form of humanism. It’s funded because at some point the question arises: is 10 percent of people who can understand a page of written text enough of an economic resource for us to keep existing? Our civilization created this phenomenon, but will it survive the result it gets?

More than a few civilizations have perished from their own mistakes. And this is one of the less visible mistakes, like the ecological danger—the fact that we cut away at our natural habitat. But it is also a mistake that could lead to our decline, and many people realize it.

That’s why a global trend is now beginning toward restricting the digital delivery of information to young people.

– Yes, but chaotically, unconsciously, and amid an already broken public dialogue on the important issues. In other words, in practice the trend is doomed. And yet, as you said, it makes a big difference whether you’re playing a game that might develop your brain in some way, or just scrolling…

– It’s like the difference between poker and slot machines.

If you play Minecraft, it’s a logic game, you’re making something, but it’s as if you’re playing poker. TikTok is the slot machine—you sit, you tap and you do nothing. Except both are gambling.

If you overdo either one, you lose the other parts of your life. Because you can be a top poker player whose whole life is just that… And if you imagine that here, in a country of 7 million, we had 7 million people whose only skill was playing poker, clicking away at Minecraft… who will teach the children? Who will treat them? Who will fix the sewers? Who will build their houses?

– I follow rules with my kids too; my older son often turns down his half-hour quota on the tablet to read Harry Potter. But many people only start thinking about it once they’ve already let things slip, once they’ve given unrestricted access to technology. What’s the solution then?

– You take away the stimulus. I’m not saying it’s easy! Most often we do the same as with other issues. We talk and tell ourselves: “It’s not true, it’s not a problem, that’s nonsense, there’s nothing wrong with my child.” Or “I know a kid who’s on his tablet all day and has an Olympiad medal.” You think of isolated cases that confirm your thesis, the one you emotionally want to be true, so you don’t have to deal with it, fight with your child, invent games for them, entertain them, put up with them sulking.

You try to spare yourself all that, because you have work, you have to cook, you’re only human…

Every possible parental explanation is true, every single one. The question is what decision you make—do you feel like dealing with it? If not, you’ll find an awful lot of arguments.

If you do, here comes the bad news: it will be a hard battle. Fortunately, no harder than many other battles we parents have to fight in raising our children. But a battle nonetheless. First, because the child is already used to the reward and the thrill, and few other things can deliver that kind of stimulation. Second, because we parents are very often alone in this battle; everyone around has a device.

What are you protecting? A little island surrounded by screens.

We’re on our own! Some specialists recommend one number of hours, others another. Schools have such a patchwork of policies; there’s no public framework that would back any parental position. People create little micro-communities of the like-minded around this principle.

We’re left to our own judgment, but thank God there is more and more accumulated information, if we care to read it.

– Meanwhile, here and there, governments occasionally remember that it’s not such a good idea for four-year-olds to be on TikTok, and still their measures are mostly palliative.

– Still, legal restrictions are being introduced; Australia, for example, is banning social media accounts for those under 16. Because

social networks carry very clear risks for children: harassment, including sexual harassment, a decline in intellectual capacity, all kinds of risky behavior.

Bullying in these environments becomes much more hidden and invisible. It can lead to terrible states and behaviors in response, and you won’t find out, because nobody knows. The child is humiliated, insulted and crushed in some closed digital space where no one has access except the child and the abusers.

Another step is

a return to paper textbooks, abandoning digital programs in which billions have been invested.

In Northern Europe, for instance, they are increasingly removing digital learning materials and going back to paper, because they see the difference in the brain’s ability to process information.

Ultimately, we’re not talking about knowledge. Some say that if we learn from a computer, we remember much more. That’s probably true. But

the point of learning is to teach you to think.

To be able, when you encounter new information, to see it, remember it, understand it and use it.

The digital environment makes engagement easier, because it’s far more attractive than paper, and remembering easier, because it builds many more neural connections.

But it bugs out the main goal of learning.

– And yet, if we decide we’ve overdone it, is it good to stop abruptly? Little by little? Should we talk more? Where does the road back to balance run?

– Whoever answers that would be irresponsible, because people layer it onto thousands of individual cases. Taking the digital device away completely, thank God, cannot harm the child—unlike certain substances, where abrupt withdrawal causes damage.

The best-case scenario is for the child to have discipline and self-control.

Sooner or later they will be exposed to a world where technology is necessary, and it’s good to help them develop self-discipline and free will, like your son. If I can play on the tablet or draw, I have the free will to choose. But neither is mandatory, because my brain isn’t telling me that one of them is the most important, meaningful and valuable thing in the world.

Empowering children to have access and freedom of choice, however, happens gradually. In the end, we create all their habits in one way or another.

Through imitation—that is very important. If we want the child to limit their use of digital devices, we have to limit ours in front of them. If you tell them, “Put that phone down and go study,” while swiping away at your own phone, it doesn’t carry much weight.

I don’t like bribery as a parenting method, although we all use it. “If you tidy your room, I’ll buy you chocolate.” “If you learn your lesson, I’ll take you to the theater.” “If you read 10 pages, I’ll give you the phone for half an hour.” I fundamentally dislike this method, but it could be used. Only not just for the child to read 10 pages, but for them to be able to tell you what they read, through check questions—and “Did you understand?” is not such a question.

If you have the time and energy to ask “What did you find interesting?”, “Why did this character behave that way?”, “Tell me what this story means”…

Then they can reach the coveted phone, but having made an effort. They’ll know the world isn’t just fun and good things require effort.

Everyone raises their children differently, that’s clear. Some people have no choice; they can’t fight this battle. Someone who works 12 hours a day, picks the child up, cooks—when exactly are they supposed to fight the battle over the phone? The point is at least to be aware of it.

– Why did you start writing children’s books?

– The motivation is very complex. First, because it’s great fun. Second, it was no accident that I started at a time when I already had a small child. Third, because the things I talk about in my children’s books are topics we adults very rarely put on the table in front of children. These are topics about being able to better understand what is happening inside them and around them. Not only to recognize it, but to be able to use that information. To subject it to critical evaluation, to progressive or regressive cause-and-effect analysis. Progressive is: “If I do A, B will happen,” and regressive: “B has happened, so it’s very likely that A happened before it.” This is extremely important in life, even, if you like, for planning a birthday party.

All our thinking is built on chains of logic like these.

– You host a podcast called Natural Intelligence. When do you think is the moment to introduce children to artificial intelligence? We all talk about it, it’s around us constantly, and it’s yet another thing where we don’t know what we’re doing, and we could repeat the same mistake we started with…

– The complex computational models called AI also have at least two sides. Since we’re somehow in the anxious conversation, I’ll start with the dangerous one, which is that

human abilities to perform certain functions atrophy

for the simple reason that there is now someone to delegate them to, who performs them with an acceptable level of error. Which is great.

The problem is that if we all start delegating to a device that performs operations with an acceptable level of error,

who, at some point, will have the capacity to say whether that level of error is acceptable?

In other words, whether the product the computational model generates is a good product that will do the job for us.

Some percentage of people must retain the ability to judge critically. You can only do that if you have actively participated many, many, many times in the process of generating the product you are evaluating. In other words, you need a certain level of experience and mastery that you will never develop if you haven’t gone through that process.

– That is happening in programming right now: AI does much of the work and we aren’t hiring enough young people. So in a few years there really won’t be anyone left to judge.

– It will be like with teachers—all the engineers will be of retirement age, and nobody will want to go to an IT company to write prompts. But that’s your problem. I’m sure you’ll make it ours too, but not anytime soon.

That’s the risk. There are already people who have no idea where they are. We’ve had decent GPS systems for about 15 years, and for about 10, with phones, everyone has GPS. And

having no idea where you are in space confuses you and bugs you out in so many unconscious meta-intellectual ways that, at the very least, it narrows your world.

If the world for you is the dot you see, and you have no idea where that dot sits in the whole big world, it makes your brain extremely narrowed and focused only on your immediate surroundings. That in turn undermines your overall capacity to see in perspective—your life, your relationships, your country’s politics—to hold some bigger picture.

That is the problem with convenience.

Most likely the same old-timer grumbling existed 150 years ago, when the mechanical looms appeared. Some people cried: “Oh no, what will happen when we lose the skill of weaving?” And look, we survived.

The problem with complex computational models is that they strike at the fundamentally human, at our evolutionary advantage of thinking in complex ways.

Leading to the atrophy of intellectual abilities, of the ability to socialize and to think in more complex ways.

– While this topic keeps sitting on the margins of public conversation… But it is precisely because of it that this site has existed for four years now. Thank you!

So far in the “Digital Children” series:

• How do today’s children encounter technology? – a survey

• Hedgehogs Are Born Without AI

• “An era is coming in which we will have to reinvent ourselves.” What will the professions of the future be, and what makes sense to study today? – futurologist Assoc. Prof. Mariana Todorova

• Why does a programmer advise parents on how to get off the grid? – Alexandrina Georgieva of Offline Kids

• What should tomorrow’s education look like? How do we choose the best teacher? – Evgenia Peeva

• How do we introduce children to AI, and why is reading so important? – Val Stoeva

• “I want to tell today’s mothers to take it easier” – Krasimira Hadzhiivanova of Mayko Mila! (Oh, Mother!)

• Parenting as war in the cartoons of Neda Malcheva

• Where did we leave the role of the father? – Mihail Stefanov

If you have ideas about other important aspects of this topic, I’d be glad if you shared them here.