By addiction we mean a persistent desire and habit, the refusal of which leads to a deterioration in the quality of life and, at a minimum, a mood disorder.
Of course, in the subjective assessment of the addicted person. The best or radical way to protect a child from dependence on electronic devices - gadgets - their absence.
But what should you do when a child, one way or another, gains experience using a smartphone, a computer, and electronic technologies in general – experience at school, in the yard, in any communication with other children and people.
This situation is relevant for most children and families.
Today, even monks embrace modern technology and make extensive use of smartphones, often for direct learning and service to God; an example of this would be reading biblical texts from a cell phone screen.
From this it is clear that electronic technologies in general, and personal computers, tablet computers and smartphones in particular, are all just a “smell of time” or a tool that can be used in one way or another, and the time of use can be regulated.
After all, nails can be hammered in using a microscope in a metal case, but why?
Not all “segments” and elements of dependence on electronic devices are equal (equally dangerous), therefore, not all of them need to be abandoned, said psychologist Andrei Kashkarov .
More precisely, at different times, in different situations and in relation to a specific child with his or her characteristic features, ability to perceive, habits, interests and preferences, the issue of limiting the use of electronic gadgets is resolved differently.
Indeed, when used uncontrolled, there is not much benefit for a child or a schoolchild. The fact is that a child without adult control has a choice of content, and having a choice, uses it.
Even if parents set the task of completing an assignment on an educational portal (of which there are many now), a school-age child will definitely look at other computer or smartphone options, other content, sometimes not corresponding to the “children’s” purpose, but interesting for the child himself. This is normal.
Every person, according to the properties of thinking laid down by nature and the sphere of habitation, is curious, and everyone wants to be surprised by this world in its various possibilities, and preferably from a positive side.
Therefore, whether a child should be punished for "curiosity" is probably a big question. But parents often forget that they themselves were children, and some of them happily "remained" them.
The situation with gadget addiction is fueled by the fact that the child sees examples all around. They say that "everyone does it", and of course, "I want to do it too".
If you ignore this circumstance, of course, you can keep a tight rein on the child and block his access to the Internet, but this can have consequences of psychological trauma.
“I’m not like everyone else,” “I or we are worse than others,” the little developing personality thinks.
Therefore, the first and most important thing that a parent must do is to explain to the child the reasons for such a restriction. And the parent himself (the parent) should demonstrate less of his activity on the smartphone.
Otherwise, cognitive dissonance arises – two sets of contradictory information: you teach me not to do this, but you yourself use it.
You can give an example of other children from unfavorable interaction with electronic devices: someone's battery "exploded" in their hands, someone, after watching "forbidden" videos, began to do the same at home (say, to laugh - to hit the hand of a neighbor at the table who was raising a glass of juice to his mouth) and was punished. There are many variations of examples and conversations.
If these conditions - explanation and example - are met, then they move on to substitution practice. That is, they interest the child in other activities in accordance with his age and capabilities.
Sports are excellent and almost universally suitable. At the same time, they do not make a direct analogy with army discipline in the manner of "a soldier must always be busy, if a soldier is not busy - he is not a soldier", they select and regulate a flexible and adjustable daily routine - classes (learning new things and rest).
Leisure activities include trips, walks in nature, communication with animals, and even such useful healthy lifestyle practices as swimming. With such a busy schedule, there is no time for a smartphone or computer.
From the point of view of substitution therapy, it is appropriate to give the child the competence to work with electronic devices, but configured under parental control.
For example, the currently popular intelligent systems and "speakers" with voice control (so as not to advertise the models, let's just say "Alice") may well be of benefit to children. At night, such a system will read a "fairy tale", and everyone will be happy.
In addition, the system is customizable, that is, it ignores some “words” and “requests” as previously configured by the parent or gives answers that correspond to the level of development and needs of the child.
The most logical and relatively simple way to get rid of addiction is to give children complete freedom of communication with electronic gadgets.
At least this motivator can interest the child, but by stipulating it: at 8 years old you can work on the computer with me, create a personal account.
At 10, you will receive a smartphone as a gift. At 14, you can communicate without any restrictions. Of course, in these phrases, both the "numbers" and the examples themselves are conditional.
The experience of fathers (from the last century), when parents bought a pack of cigarettes for their son to stop “abusing tobacco” and forced him to smoke until “smoke came out of his ears”, is, of course, out of date, an anachronism of the era. But the meaningful pedagogical component – to give the forbidden fruit, but under control, has retained its relevance today.
The problem is often not so much in limiting a child's use of gadgets, but in how to do it.
At the same time, the situation is such that parents, in principle, are not taught “parenting” and “raising” children – all this is left to chance and is considered to be entirely the area of care and responsibility of parents.
Not everyone can become a teacher, even if they are taught the profession. Not everyone works in it, and those who do – millions of people in the world – are not all the same, there are also random people, as in any profession.
Imagine how many conditionally "accidental parents" there are today. But everyone knows their rights. So, the problem is that parents are not taught the educational process and pedagogy.
And in such a situation, parents are influenced only by the experience and advice of other parents (since school teachers are often, and sometimes rightly, perceived as biased by their own interests), and the experience of elders and other relatives.
That is, the experience is not perfect, since it is “the same thing” all around. But there is light at the end of the tunnel, if you do not ban gadgets, but explain to the child their imperfections using examples and be sure to give something else interesting as compensation.
As long as this is the case, the child’s trust is not lost.
