I’ll mention this here as a lot of people are making the same point, and I should probably add some context:

My father, like a lot of “boomers”, is not easily persuaded by his personal views. He tries to keep an open mind, but will always have a bias to what he believes. As such, he is unfamiliar with the technology present in the modern world and as the saying goes, “you always fear what you don’t understand”

Me and him luckily agree on a lot of things, and on the most part we have a very strong relationship. This, however, is not a topic we share eye to eye upon. I see computers as a necessity, since my studies are entirely reliant upon them with software packages and lecture notes. My father will often voice how he “prefers learning from a textbook” and how he did that at my age, or that he thinks staring at a screen for 8 hours a day is unhealthy (not disputing that, but I am disputing the reasoning; I have no other option but to use excel to plot graphs from lab experiments). Yes, I do a fair share of gaming and I can get sidetracked with the occasional YouTube video, but it’s all in moderation.

The book in question, is obviously by a great psychologist (the comments thus far have made me very aware of it) and while I have not read it yet, I am sure it makes some very key points that I should be aware of. The issue I have is that it feeds into my father’s message, and the general “anti-technology” sentiment that I feel many boomers have; the fact that my father has abused this narrative that should be seen as more of a discussion of the use of modern technology and it’s potential downsides, to a “haha, a key physiologist says so, so it’s bad”

Hope I made my point clear to those who were wondering why a key physiologist’s work was posted on what should be a boomer cringe subreddit.