Here's a man who he's on, he is being interviewed to talk about what technology has done to our kids

and what the role of technology has been historically every single time we introduce new technology to kids.

Rob, I want you to play the one from X because it's a lot cleaner without the start.

So here's Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, okay?

Let's forget about his middle name, but Dr. Jared Horvath is giving this message.

And I want to, can you go all the way to the top, Rob, for me to read some of the quote?

Okay, he breaks down, delivered the brutal truth parents and educators need to face. His core warning, Gen Z is the first modern generation to be, well, I'll let him say it. Rob, played a clip. It is so powerful. How long is it? Man, we can't watch the whole thing, but we'll watch the first two minutes. Go ahead, Rob.

Thank you guys.

Name is Dr. Jared Cooney-Horvath. I'm a former teacher turned cognitive neuroscientist who focuses on human learning.

And I do not receive funding, nor have I ever from big tech. So a sad fact our generation has to face is this.

Our kids are less cognitively capable than we were at their age. Since we've been standardizing and measuring cognitive development since the late 1800s, every generation has outperformed their parents. And that's exactly what we want. We want sharper kids. And the reason for this largely has been school. Each generation spends more time in school. We use school to develop our cognition. Congratulations. You see your correlation.

Until Gen Z, Gen Z is the first generation of modern history to underperform us on basically every cognitive measure we have.

From basic attention to memory, to literacy, to numeracy, to executive functioning, to even general IQ, even though they go to more school than we did.

So why?

What happened around 2010 that decoupled schooling from cognitive development? It can't be school. Schools basically look the same. It can't be biology. This hasn't enough time to change. The answer appears to be the tools we are using within schools to drive that learning. Across 80 countries, as Jean was just saying, if you look at the data once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly. to the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two-thirds of a standard deviation less than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school. And that's across 80 countries. Bring it home to the U.S. Let's go to the U.S. We have our NAEP. That's our big data. Take any state, and here's a fun experiment, you can try.

Take any state NAEP data.

Compare that to win that state adopted one-to-one technology widely, and watch what happens. The NAEP data will plateau and then start to drop. Now, as Gene said, of course, this is all correlative. What we really want is causative. to get causation, what you need is academic research and you need mechanisms, explanations for why we're seeing what we're seeing.

Luckily, we have academic research and you need mechanisms, explanations for why we're seeing what we're seeing.

Luckily, we have academic research stretching back to 1962 that shows the exact same story for 60 years.

When tech enters education, learning goes down.

In fact, one of the biggest ed psychologist right now, Dylan William out of the UK, recently said,

Ed Tech is a revolution that's been coming for 60 years, and we're going to have to wait another 60 because it ain't doing anything. Now, that's research, but now we need mechanisms. Luckily, over the last about two decades, we've been doing a lot of work in what we call the science of learning. How do human beings learn? And we now have the clear understanding of why tech does not work for learning, and it is all biological. It's not that the tech isn't being used well enough.

...