Is human connection really the privilege of the rich?

A recent publication in a UK's leading newspaper came up with a title "A phone-free childhood is a hallmark

of the upper classes. Not everyone can enlist battalions of nannies to keep the little ones occupied". As much as I hate this title, it rings a bell.

Children need human attention to grow up and develop well — not endless shiny new gadgets. But poor parents do not have this luxury, because they are busy surviving and spreading their attention thin, as they make too many choices.

Neuroscience consistently shows that children’s cognitive development relies heavily on serve-and-return interactions — the back-and-forth emotional exchanges between caregiver and child. Without consistent human responsiveness, the brain's architecture develops with deficits in emotional regulation, language acquisition, and problem-solving ability. Myelination (white matter coating of neurons) slows down when children are exposed to screens at early age and deprived of human experiences. Devices cannot replicate this reciprocal stimulation; they provide input without feedback, which leads to passive rather than active learning.

Let's say things openly — poor in the current realities does not simply mean "living on benefits" or "unwilling to work." In the UK, more and more families are struggling to live a decent life in the current economy even with two salaries, let alone single moms. I am talking about people with higher education (or even several degrees). For the most part, the UK has become the country of poor people struggling to make ends meet.

It's not just the cost of childcare and nannies — although this is a fundamental problem in the UK.

Poverty means that you have to make hundreds of small decisions that deplete your brain — should you buy this or that product to feed kids, because if you buy both, you'll struggle to pay for your heating. Research shows that poor people constantly face decision fatigue — and when they are overloaded by too many decisions, they make poorer choices, they simply have no energetic or mental resources to grow. And they have no attention resources to give to their kids - so they give gadgets instead.

In other words, poor people end up giving devices to their kids not just because they don't have money for a nanny — but also because they lack emotional resources to give attention.

The burden on low-income parents is not just emotional but biological. Chronic stress elevates cortisol levels, which directly impairs executive function — the very brain systems needed for patience, responsiveness, and emotional availability. A parent who is neurologically exhausted cannot provide the type of attuned presence a child needs. In this context, a screen becomes not just a distraction tool — it becomes a coping mechanism for both parent and child.

Longitudinal studies on attention resilience show that attention isn’t a fixed trait — it is modeled. Children learn how to regulate focus by observing how adults manage theirs. In households where adults are constantly multitasking, digitally overstimulated, or chronically stressed, children internalize fragmentation as normal. Conversely, in homes where calm, uninterrupted time is protected — often a luxury only the affluent can afford — children build deeper neural wiring for patience and concentration.

Do you know why business lounges in the airports are quiet? Why the most expensive resorts or exclusive apartment blocks have no noise?

Because the lack of distractions and recovery time is essential for good decision-making. And rich people are willing to pay for attention and lack of stress with money - while poor people are paying with their attention. 

When children are banned from using tech at schools (like in the LSE experiment), you know who benefits the most? Children from poor/disadvantaged families. Because they are never taught how to hold their attention span. Because they weren't shown the example of focused attention in the beginning. Kids from rich families experience almost no difference when they aren't allowed to use tech in schools.

Tech habits are not a standalone thing. It's something that is widely connected with how society lives. And if we want to have a healthier nation (UK or any other country), simply banning devices (or social media) will not work - because it's a symptom of a hugely dysfunctional system. 

P.S. Do you want to help families have healthier relationships with their gadgets? Or perhaps you want it for your own kids? Check out CDI certification in digital wellbeing, accredited by two major coaching associations. Course is offered once per year, waitlist open. Details here: https://www.consciously-digital.com/coaches