Recently, Dr. Jonathan Haidt, author of, “The Anxious Generation – How The Great Rewiring Of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic Of Mental Health” (1) has publicly argued against the use of educational technology (Ed Tech) in schools, suggesting that it negatively affects learning by altering dopamine responses in students. His statement, which has been widely shared online, claims that gamifying a quarter of a child's school day with screen-based rewards may increase engagement initially but ultimately makes non-screen activities seem more boring. As a result, he argues, children may end up learning less than if technology had not been used at all because of the dopamine effect. (2)  In fact, in a recent Instagram reel Dr Haidt stated: “if you gamify a 1/4 of a child’s school day with screen based rewards you will get more engagement during that part of the day it will work or it will seem to work, but their dopamine neurone will then “adapt” to that and everything not on a screen will now be more boring that it would have been if you didn’t gamify it for a 1/4 of the day, so the child will end up perhaps learning a lot less if you hadn’t used ed based tech to teach them” (3) In this YouTube video (4) , Dr. Haidt made the same statement at the 36-minute, 13-second mark. However, he prefaced it by saying that after reading Dr. Anna Lembke’s book, Dopamine Nation , he formulated the above noted opinion in the form of a “Haiku”. Having read Dopamine Nation ourselves, we found no evidence-based research supporting such a statement, nor did we find any instance where Dr. Lembke made such an assertion in her book. While this claim may sound compelling on the surface, our research, and consultations with the PhD experts who actually study dopamine suggest otherwise, so our spider sense started to tingle . Given our experience in digital literacy and internet safety, we sought input from PhD researchers who specialize in dopamine studies. Their responses directly challenge Dr. Haidt’s assertions and highlight the importance of basing arguments on actual scientific evidence rather than assumptions. Understanding Dopamine’s Role in Learning Dopamine is often misunderstood as a "pleasure chemical" when, in reality, it is more accurately described as a neurotransmitter involved in motivation, learning, and reinforcement. (5) The idea that dopamine neurons "adapt" to screen-based rewards and cause children to disengage from non-screen learning does not align with established neuroscience. Dr. Mark Humphries, a Professor of Computational Neuroscience who studies dopamine, explained that dopamine neurons do not simply "adapt". Instead, they respond to unexpected rewards but stop firing when a reward becomes predictable. In an email to us, Dr. Humphries elaborated: "Sounds like the quote is invoking the fact that we expect dopamine neurons to stop signalling once a new reward becomes predictable: they fire to unexpected rewards, but once one can reliably predict the reward AND gets the reward predicted, the dopamine neurons do not respond. They do not “adapt”, but are signalling there has been no error in the prediction." He further pointed out that if there is a decline in engagement with repeated screen exposure, it may be due to simple satiation, much like how food is less appealing when one is full, not because of any fundamental change in dopamine signalling. So, specific to Dr Haidt’s statement mentioned above, Dr Humphries stated: “So, spider sense is on the money I think: a lot of assumptions in there that would need strong evidence to stand up to scrutiny.”  We also reached out to Dr Steven Quartz, a researcher who also specializes in the study of dopamine, about Dr Haidt’s statement. His reply: “Regarding the statement in question, I don’t think there’s much evidence that dopamine neurons themselves ‘adapt’ in the way the statement suggests. That is, video-based instruction is not causing the non-screen instruction to be less engaging due to some effect the video instruction has on dopamine neurons.” Dr Quartz further went on to share with us: “No doubt video games and potentially video-based instruction can be very engaging because they incorporate markers of progress towards goals (eg accumulating points towards completing a level), which do engage dopamine-based learning. They can also be very visually engaging, which promotes attention. It’s possible there’s a general contrast effect, but that would be due making the less engaging aspects of non-video instruction more salient rather than an effect on dopaminergic neurons. A potential strategy would be to use non-video instruction first in the day followed by video-based instruction.” Also, in a recent online posting, according to Dr Steven Quartz a recent study found no evidence of dopamine “tolerance”, which leads to dopamine deficiency. (6) As Dr Quartz stated, this 2024 study cautions against simplistic parallels between addictions and ordinary rewards. (7) Where Is the Evidence? The primary issue with Dr. Haidt’s statement is that it lacks empirical and researched based evidence. While concerns about overuse of technology in education are valid and worthy of discussion, claims about the negative neurological impact of Ed Tech on dopamine and learning need to be backed by rigorous scientific studies. When we examined the available research, and consulted with the experts who study dopamine, we found no conclusive evidence linking Ed Tech to the kind of dopamine-driven disengagement that Haidt describes. In fact, studies have shown positive effects of dopamine on learning (8) Many researchers have found that technology, when used as a supplement rather than a replacement for traditional teaching methods, combined with evidence based educational pedagogy surrounding the use of technology in the classroom, can enhance motivation, engagement, and comprehension, especially for students who struggle with conventional instruction. (9) Dr. Haidt is not a neuroscientist, nor is he a researcher specializing in dopamine studies. This does not mean his opinions should be dismissed outright, but it does mean that his claims should be subject to the same scrutiny as any scientific hypothesis or opinion. When influential figures make broad claims about technology’s impact on children, it is crucial to demand evidence rather than accept assertions at face value based on very loose interpretation of research. The assumption that screen-based learning inherently diminishes a child’s ability to focus on non-screen activities because of dopamine is an “opinion”, not a proven evidence-based fact. Until robust research supports such claims, caution is necessary before advocating for drastic changes, such as outright banning Ed Tech in schools, based on Dr Haidt’s opinions on this issue. Dr. Haidt’s claim that Ed Tech negatively impacts learning by disrupting dopamine responses is not supported by neuroscience experts we consulted with or any current research we could find. While concerns about excessive screen time and digital distraction in schools are valid, broad claims about neurological harm need substantial evidence. As we navigate the evolving role of technology in education, it is essential to base decisions on rigorous research rather than assumptions or fear-driven narratives. The conversation about Ed Tech should not be framed as a binary choice between full adoption and outright rejection. Instead, we should focus on best pedagogy practices that maximize educational benefits while addressing potential drawbacks. Only by taking an evidence-based approach can we ensure that technology serves as a tool for enhancing, rather than hindering, learning. Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech References 1/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/book-review-the-anxious-generation-how-the-great-rewiring-of-childhood-is-causing-an-epidemic-of-mental-health/ 2/  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l_pIVJwgFI&t=1s 3/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGdb11jJSIk/ 4 / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_GY-cW4-Dc&t=1s 5/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/dopamine-facts-vs-fear/ 6/ https://x.com/stevenquartz/status/1899843884664148240?s=46 7/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40043691/ 8/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230606111734.htm 9/ https://thewhitehatter.ca/blog/first-it-was-the-phones-now-some-want-to-ban-all-tech-in-the-classroom/

That same learning principle matters when we look at AI companionship apps. AI companionship apps are designed to feel relational. AI Functions like a mirror, reflecting emotions by not possessing them AI companionship apps give you Be skeptical AI companionship apps are not currently designed for youth and teens, and AI companies are AI companionship apps tap into the same mechanism.

on the institution’s Instagram public account, were copied by a malicious actor, manipulated using AI school liable because an unrelated third party used publicly available school photographs to create AI In the incident we assisted with this week involving AI generated deepfakes, the facts were materially Schools themselves increasingly teach students about deepfakes, misinformation, AI-generated content, What Reasonable Care May Look Like in the AI Era As AI capabilities continue to evolve, courts may also

Context aware social AI does not push everything it can. AI systems can optimize for emotional attachment. AI can train users to defer. AI can replace emotional processing. AI influence metrics can be invisible.

So, how does this relate to Artificial Intelligence (AI), youth, and teens? However, AI is shifting this focus. This can make AI companions feel “safer” than human relationships. AI companionship apps are evolving fast. AI doesn’t just analyze what youth and teens say.

In today’s onlife world, we’re constantly bombarded with headlines in the media making bold claims about research findings, especially when it comes to parenting, technology, and child development. But not all research is reported accurately, and it’s easy to be misled by sensationalized conclusions that lack important context. That’s why parents and caregivers need to take a critical approach when reading online articles or social media posts about scientific studies. This is also why we here at the White Hatter turn to a group of well respected PhD researchers in this field of study to help us interpret the research. A common issue in science reporting by those who are not researchers is the misrepresentation of statistical findings. Sometimes, studies find only tiny correlations between two factors, yet media outlets or advocacy groups exaggerate, or cherry pick, these results to make them sound more dramatic than they really are. Consider a recent Canadian study that examined violent screen time in preschoolers and later antisocial behaviour in teens. (1) The actual statistical results of the study were so close to zero that they were essentially meaningless, nothing more than statistical noise. Yet, some people clouded the context of the findings by making claims online like: “Violent Screen Time in Preschool Predicts Violent Behaviour in Teens!” Without looking at the actual numbers or considering the broader scientific context, this claim is misleading and can create unnecessary fear among parents. Other confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, family environment, or pre-existing mental health conditions, could be far more influential than social media use when it comes to predicting violent behaviour in teens. When parents see headlines like “Violent Screen Time in Preschool Predicts Violent Behaviour in Teens!”, they might panic and make drastic decisions based on incomplete or misrepresented information rather than looking at the broader scientific consensus. When we don’t critically evaluate the research behind headlines, we risk making parenting decisions based on fear rather than facts. To avoid being misled by exaggerated or misrepresented research findings, parents and caregivers should consider: Sensationalized click-bait headlines are designed to grab attention but often leave out critical details. Always read the full article as well as the actual research before drawing conclusions. If a study finds a correlation, how strong is it? If the effect is close to zero, it’s likely not meaningful. Is the study accounting for other variables, known as confounding factors, that could influence the results? Trusted sources like scientific journals, universities, and reputable researchers often provide more nuanced interpretations of study results. If an article uses fear-based language rather than facts, be skeptical. However, the challenge for parents and caregivers who are not researchers - it’s really hard to interpret and make sense of academic research studies. To be honest, reading some of these studies is like watching paint dry. That is why we here at the White Hatter attempt to make such research more “understandable” for parents, caregivers, educators, and teens which at times is not an easy task. Science, and evidence-based research is an essential tool for understanding the world, but when research is misrepresented, it can lead to unnecessary panic and poor decision-making. As parents, caregivers, and educators it’s important to approach research findings and media headlines with a critical eye, ensuring that we rely on facts rather than fear when making decisions about our children’s well-being. The key issue here isn’t whether we should act when we see harm, but whether the data actually indicates “real” harm. If the research figure comes from statistical noise, meaning it’s not a reliable or meaningful signal, then using it to justify widespread changes is misleading. Just like we wouldn’t recall food based on a faulty thermometer reading, we shouldn’t push for major policy or social shifts based on numbers that don’t hold up under scrutiny. Acting on unreliable data doesn’t just create unnecessary panic; it also distracts us from focusing on real, evidence-based risks that need attention. We believe this approach keeps the focus on the validity of the data rather than appearing dismissive of potential harm Next time you see a dramatic claim in a news article or social media post, take a step back, dig into the actual research, and ask yourself: Is this really what the study found, or is this just a case of science being lost in translation to fit a narrative, a political agenda, or to generate clicks? Digital Food For Thought The White Hatter Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech References: 1/ https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/1/129

They appear to be AI-generated illustrations, visual interpretations created by an algorithm that the And AI-generated illustrations are not scientific proof. believe that Matter Neuroscience appears to offers an innovative and novel tool for self-reflection that aims And in this case, the trail led us to these AI generated images being used as a marketing tool.

shared interests, we are seeing the rise of Social AI com groups (4) . A Social AI Com group is a community space where AI plays a social role, either directly or indirectly shared AI interactions Group spaces where AI content shapes how people connect The AI is not just answering Companionship AI allows users to chat with AI characters that have personalities, memory, and conversational Many teens do not keep these AI conversations to themselves.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming how we live, work, and interact. we can better protect our children in today's AI generated onlife world. Here are some ways AI is being exploited by predators: Deepfake Technology Deepfake AI can create fake AI-Enhanced Social Media Scanning Predators can use AI algorithms to scan social media profiles, identifying AI-Generated Fake Identities AI makes it easier for predators to create convincing fake profiles.

However, in today’s world of artificial intelligence (AI) “prompt engineering” (learning how to word code using AI) is becoming just as important as learning traditional coding programs such as Python, However, these AI tools are becoming more advanced. Is there a possibility that these AI assistants could eventually surpass human programmers? Presently, AI serves as a valuable aid in coding skill enhancement, yet it should not be mistaken for

Rather than viewing Digital Literacy, Media Literacy, AI Literacy, and Persuasion Literacy as separate design reflects a simple but important principle, that being while Digital Literacy, Media Literacy, AI Instead of fearing AI or embracing it without question, youth and teens learn to use it thoughtfully Teaching Media Literacy without AI Literacy leaves them unprepared for AI-generated content. The visual below is a great example of AI being used intentionally to support creativity.

now often be accomplished using commercially available applications, online services, or open-source AI Has your school or district discussed what would happen if students became the targets of AI generated Does your district have a crisis response plan specifically addressing AI-generated explicit imagery Today, some AI tools can generate synthetic nudity or manipulated sexualized imagery within seconds ( In Canada, even AI generated or digitally manipulated intimate images involving minors may potentially