“屏幕時間”對兒童有害嗎？

By+Alison+Gopnik

I was in the garden with Augie， my four-year-old grandson， watching the bees in the lavender1. “Bees make honey，” I said， transmitting the wisdom of the ages in good grandmotherly fashion.2 After a pause， Augie replied， “How do they make the honey？” There is nothing like a childs question for exposing3 the limits of a grandmothers wisdom.

“Actually， Augie， I dont know，” I said.

“But， Grandmom， you have your phone，” he said. For Augie， a smartphone is as natural and unremarkable as the bees and the lavender， and holding one is almost synonymous with knowing.4

I Googled “How do bees make honey？” There were dozens of videos explaining it. As we stood in the garden， shielding the screen against the sunlight， Augie and I learned that worker bees secrete an enzyme called invertase， which converts nectar into dextrose， then flap their wings to thicken the nectar into honey.5

“Its kind of hard to see the bees，” I said， squinting6 at the screen.

“Why dont we watch it on the big computer？” Augie said.

For the next hour， we sat inside， bee-surfing.7 Someone in Sweden had posted a speeded-up video of bees building a hive， months of construction compressed into two minutes.8 There was a whole subgenre of beekeeper selfie videos.9 Best of all was a BBC documentary about the“waggle dance，” the remarkable communication system that allows bees to give one another directions to the places where theyve found nectar.10

My own childhood was dominated by a powerful device that used an optical interface to transport the user to an alternate reality.11 I spent most of my waking hours in its grip， oblivious of the world around me.12 The device was， of course， the book. Over time， reading hijacked my brain， as large areas once dedicated to processing the “real” world adapted to processing the printed word.13 As far as I can tell， this early immersion didnt hamper my development， but it did leave me with some illusions14—my idea of romantic love surely came from novels.

English childrens books， in particular， are full of tantalizing15 food descriptions. At some point in my childhood， I must have read about a honeycomb16 tea. Augie， enchanted17， agreed to accompany me to the grocery store. We returned with a jar of honeycomb， only to find that it was an inedible， waxy mess.18

Many parents worry that “screen time” will impair19 childrens development， but recent research suggests that most of the common fears about children and screens are unfounded.（There is one exception： looking at screens that emit20 blue light before bed really does disrupt sleep， in people of all ages.） The American Academy of Pediatrics21 used to recommend strict restrictions on screen exposure. In 2015， the organization examined the relevant science more thoroughly， and， as a result， changed its recommendations. The new guidelines emphasize that what matters is content and context， what children watch and with whom. Each child， after all， will have some hundred thousand hours of conscious experience before turning 16. Those hours can be like the marvellous ones that Augie and I spent together bee-watching， or they can be violent or mindless22—and thats true whether those hours are occupied by apps or TV or books or just by talk.

New tools have always led to panicky speculation.23 Socrates thought that reading and writing would have disastrous effects on memory； the novel， the telegraph， the telephone， and the television were all declared to be the End of Civilization as We Know It， particularly in the hands of the young.24 Part of the reason may be that adult brains require a lot of focus and effort to learn something new， while childrens brains are designed to master new environments spontaneously.25 Innovative technologies always seem distracting and disturbing to the adults attempting to master them， and transparent and obvious26—not really technology at all—to those， like Augie， who encounter them as children.

Like the bees， we live by the reports of others. Unlike the bees， we can invent new worlds， constructing them out of sonic vibrations， ink， or pixels.27 Sometimes those worlds deceive and confuse； at other times， they tell us something revelatory28. When Augies father got home， Augie rushed to meet him， his words tumbling29 out in excitement. “Daddy， Daddy， look，” he said， reaching for the phone. “Do you know how bees make honey？ Ill show you...”

1. lavender： 薰衣草。

2.“蜜蜂會釀蜂蜜。”我說道，以祖母和藹的口吻向他傳遞歲月的智慧。transmit： 傳播，傳遞。

3. expose： 暴露，揭露。

4. 對于奧吉來說，智能手機就和蜜蜂、薰衣草一樣自然平常，而且擁有一部手機就意味著無所不知。unremarkable： 平凡的，平常的；synonymous： 與……同義的。

5. 我們站在花園里，用手擋住射在屏幕上的陽光，從手機里了解到，工蜂分泌出轉化酶，這種轉化酶把花蜜變成葡萄糖，然后它們扇動翅膀使花蜜變得濃稠，從而形成蜂蜜。shield： 遮擋；secrete： 分泌；enzyme： 酶；invertase： 轉化酶，蔗糖酶；convert： 轉化，改變；nectar： 花蜜；dextrose： 葡萄糖；flap： 拍動，振翅。

6. squint： 瞇著眼看。

7. bee-surfing： 上網搜索關于蜜蜂的知識，源于net-surfing一詞，即網上沖浪。

8. speeded-up video： 快進視頻；hive： 蜂巢，蜂箱；compress： 壓縮，精簡。

9. subgenre： 亞類，子類型；selfie： 自拍。

10. 最好的視頻是英國廣播公司制作的一個關于“蜜蜂搖擺舞”的紀錄片，搖擺舞是一種奇特的交流方法，幫助蜜蜂彼此間傳達蜜源的所在。waggle dance：（蜜蜂以此指明蜜源地點的）搖擺舞。

11. 在我童年時期，流行一種通過視覺界面令人置身于另一個現實世界的工具。optical： 視覺的，眼睛的；interface： 界面；alternate： 交替的。

12. in ones grip： 在……的掌握或控制之中；oblivious： 忘卻的，不注意的。

13. 慢慢地，閱讀占據了我的大腦，曾經用來處理“現實”世界的大部分腦力開始適應著去處理文字世界。hijack： 劫持，綁架。

14. immersion： 沉浸，沉醉；hamper： 妨礙，限制；illusion： 幻想，想象。

15. tantalizing： 撩人的，逗人的。

16. honeycomb： 蜂巢。

17. enchant： 入迷的，陶醉的。

18. 我們買回來一罐蜂巢，結果卻發現是不能吃的、像蠟似的東西。inedible： 不能吃的；waxy： 蠟質的，似蠟的。

19. impair： 損害。

20. emit： 發射，發出。

21. American Academy of Pediatrics： 美國兒科學會。

22. marvellous： 絕妙的，極好的；mindless：不動腦子的，不用心的。

23. panicky： 恐慌的，緊張不安的；speculation： 猜測。

24. 蘇格拉底認為讀書和寫作會對人的記憶力產生災難性的影響；小說、電報、電話和電視都曾被稱作“正如我們所知”的“文明的終結者”，特別是當它們落在年輕人手里的時候。Socrates： 蘇格拉底（469BC—399BC），古希臘哲學家，認為哲學在于認識自我；the End of Civilization as We Know It： 該句出自1977年的美國電影The Strange Case of the End of Civilization as We Know It（《我們所知道的文明終結的奇案》）。

25. 部分原因是成人的大腦需要高度集中和耗費大量精力才能學會新東西，而兒童的大腦天生就能輕松自然地掌控新的環境。spontaneously： 自發地，不由自主地。

26. distracting： 使人分心的；transparent： 淺顯易懂的，一目了然的。

27. 和蜜蜂不同的是，我們可以用聲波振動、墨水和像素創造出新的世界。sonic：音波的，聲音的；vibration： 振動，擺動；pixel：（顯示器或電視機圖像的）像素。

28. revelatory： 啟示性的，揭示性的。

29. tumble： 跌跌撞撞地走，這里指孩童說話不連貫。