Religious Apartheid | Separation & segmentation

In the valleys of Kranskop, where the mist clings to the hills like unspoken regrets, my family’s story with kwaSizabantu, or KSB, as it’s known, unfolds like a wound that never quite heals. It began not with the mission’s polished facade of revival and redemption, but with the brutal blade of shunning, a practice so ingrained in KSB’s doctrine that it severs bloodlines as easily as one might clip a withered branch. Shunning isn’t mere disapproval; it’s excommunication from the soul, a deliberate isolation enforced under the banner of purity and obedience to God. It a religious Apartheid, a disgraceful and unholy separation. To leave, to question, to simply choose a different path is to invite the silence of the forsaken. And in our family, it struck first at the heart of my father, Mastelek mkulu.

The ripples of Bible House, a fervent evangelical group led by the charismatic Anton Engelbrecht, reached and touched our home. My father’s siblings, drawn by promises of spiritual fire and communal living, threw their lot in with the movement, which would later morph into the sprawling KwaSizabantu Mission under the iron guidance of Erlo Stegen. Bible House preached instant obedience, confession of sins in excruciating detail, and a hierarchy where leaders spoke as the voice of the divine. But for those who resisted, like my father, the cost was exile. Overnight, he became a ghost in his own bloodline. Phone calls went unanswered; visits were met with locked doors and averted eyes. “It’s for your soul” they said. “You’re choosing the world over Jesus.” He didn’t join, not out of rebellion, but because his faith was quieter, less armored in absolutes. My mom and him raised us with something sorely lacking at KSB, integrity and true strength in faith. Faith was never blind obedience.

A decade passed before reconciliation came, bittersweet and incomplete. Bible House dissolved into KSB, as Erlo Stegen consolidated power on a 140-hectare farmstead bought for the cause using ill gotten gains. My father was extended an olive branch as his family reconciled, leaving Bible House but not joining KSB. He was the prodigal. But you see, he had been right all along. By then, KSB had grown into a self-sustaining empire: schools, farms, even a bottled water brand called aQuellé, drawn from the mission’s own springs and marketed as “purity in every drop.” It had ballooned into a network of control, where obedience wasn’t optional, it was the air you breathed.

The shunning didn’t fade with time; it calcified. I saw it devour my cousin Karen, a girl I’d known growing up. Married to Albu van Eerden, both deep in KSB’s fold, she turned inward to embrace the devil by shunning her own children. Tabitha, her daughter, bright, questioning Tabitha, who dared to seek a life beyond the mission’s walls, was cut off without ceremony. No birthday calls, no hospital visits during illness, just the void. Karen’s other children fared no better; one by one, they were deemed worldly, their imagined sins confessed by their mother publicly before the congregation. And then the wall went up. What drives a mother to this? To stare into the eyes of her flesh and blood and see only a threat to her salvation? It’s not a love of Jesus, its the twisted teachings of KSB, a love that demands you “die to self,” even if it means burying the living. Witnesses before South Africa’s Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL) have described it as systemic: families torn asunder, weddings boycotted, children orphaned by decree. One ex-member recalled parents refusing to attend their child’s marriage because it defied the mission’s courtship bans, no dating, no autonomy, just arranged unions blessed by the elders. In KSB, love is conditional, doled out like rations in a siege.

At the helm of this machine stood the Stegen brothers: Erlo, the founder, a missionary whose fake Zulu revival birthed the mission, and Friedl, his quieter but no less commanding sibling, who preached “instant obedience” from pulpits echoing with the ghosts of German pietism. Their rule was absolute, laced with secrecy that one critic, their own brother Manfred, likened to “Nazi-style” control, decisions shrouded, dissent crushed. Manfred, once a pillar, grew disillusioned, peeling back the layers of abuse: forced confessions that veered into voyeurism, underpaid labor on mission farms, and a doctrine that policed thoughts as fiercely as actions. For his candor, he was shunned, barred from the community he helped build, his warnings dismissed as betrayal. Even Friedl, in his nineties and confined to a wheelchair, wasn’t spared the blade. Accused of straying from the “Way,” he was isolated by the very obedience he once demanded, wheeled away from fellowship like yesterday’s sermon. The irony was poetic, almost karmic.

Karma, in our family’s telling, runs deeper still. Friedl’s wealth, stemmed from a betrayal that scarred another lineage: the Witthofs, a vulnerable German family whose patriarch’s will he assisted in executing. The widow, grieving and isolated, trusted him implicitly. But Friedl, with executor powers unchecked, transferred their fertile farms into his own name, a brazen heist that funneled resources into his own and Erlo’s growing empire. It echoed an earlier theft: Bible House’s coffers, siphoned by Hogart Joosten in the movement’s chaotic infancy, providing the seed money for KSB’s expansion. These weren’t footnotes in revival history; they were the foundation stones, built on wool pulled over grieving eyes. Friedl’s late-life shunning? To us, it was the universe’s quiet accounting, a reminder that no throne of piety stands forever.

Today, as scandals swirl, allegations of sexual assault, child labour, and cultic control probed by commissions and ignored by corrupt police, KSB soldiers on, its aQuellé bottles gleaming on shelves despite attempts at boycotts. The mission’s defenders cling to a narrative of salvation, but I see the cost: fractured families, silenced voices, a society where “helping people” means breaking them first. To those who still quench their thirst with aQuellé, who tithe to this golden calf, take a hard look. Is this the obedience Jesus craved, or the cage we build when faith turns feral? My father’s reconciliation with his family taught me grace is possible, but only if we see the shadows. Shunning isn’t divine; it’s the cult’s cruelest chain. And in breaking it, we reclaim not just our families, but our souls and humanity.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

Tailgating

Growing up in a family with ties to the cult of kwaSizabantu (KSB), I found myself dragged into some truly peculiar social obligations. My cousins on my dad Mastelek’s side were die-hard devotees of KSB—where “Reverend” Erlo Stegen reigned supreme as the spiritual patriarch. He wasn’t just a preaching bible puncher; he was the architect of lives, dictating everything from daily routines to eternal destinies. And when it came to matrimony, Erlo’s word was law. These weren’t your typical love stories blooming from stolen glances or whirlwind romances. No, sir—these unions were meticulously arranged under his watchful eye, with a strict code that forbade any premarital “shenanigans,” as my dad would euphemistically put it. Courtship was a controlled affair: supervised interactions, no physical contact beyond a chaste handshake, and certainly no funny business that might sully the purity of the occasion. It was all about divine alignment, or so they claimed.

My parents, bless their skeptical souls, weren’t exactly enthusiastic participants in this fervor. They accepted the wedding invitations more out of morbid curiosity than genuine familial duty—a chance to peek behind the curtain of this ultra-strict world without committing to its doctrines. “Need to see what they are up to,” my dad would quip under his breath. And when these events coincided with my holidays, I’d inevitably tag along, wondering what fresh oddity awaited.

I remember one wedding in particular, when I was already knee-deep in my university days at Maties, feeling worlds away from the rigid piety on display. The ceremony was held at Claridges, that elegant old Bible House venue where these austere KSB affairs occurred. We sat through the vows, a sea of somber faces nodding in approval as the couple pledged their lives under Erlo’s orchestrated blessing. No frills, no flair—just scripture, hymns, and a palpable sense of enforced holiness.

After the “I dos,” the congregation filed into the adjoining hall for the reception. That’s when my dad, ever the opportunist, leaned over and muttered, “Come on, son, help me check the tires on the car.” I shot him a puzzled look—our tires were fine—but I followed anyway, leaving Mom to scout out our table for the impending meal. Now, these KSB weddings were bone-dry affairs; alcohol was taboo, a sinful indulgence that had no place amid the godly gathering. Lemonade, tea and maybe some grape juice were the strongest libations on offer.

We slipped out to the parking lot, and Dad popped the boot of our car. He peeled back the mat covering the spare wheel, revealing his hidden stash: a bottle of fine Scotch whisky and a couple of tumblers tucked away like contraband. “Just a quick toast to survival,” he winked, pouring us each a generous tot. There we stood, tailgating in the shadow of the venue, sipping the amber liquid and chuckling about the irony of it all—the puritans inside preaching temperance while we savored our secret rebellion.

Refreshed and a tad warmer, we rejoined the festivities for the main course. Mom eyed us suspiciously, her knowing glance saying she’d pieced it together without a word. The meal dragged on with speeches extolling Erlo’s wisdom and the couple’s virtuous path. But after the plates were cleared, Dad nudged me again: “Think we should double-check those tires, just to be sure.” I nodded, playing along, but then Mom piped up, “I’m coming with you this time.” I was gobsmacked—Mom, the picture of propriety, joining our covert operation?

Back at the car, the plot thickened. Dad hadn’t just planned for us; he’d smuggled a bottle of sweet Hanepoot wine especially for her. We poured another round—Scotch for us, wine for Mom—and there we were, the three of us, laughing quietly in the boot’s glow, toasting to our little family insurgency. It was a moment of pure, unadulterated joy amid the starchiness. We returned just in time for dessert, our spirits lifted far beyond what any sermon could achieve.

Looking back, we were undoubtedly the happiest attendees at those weddings. While the KSB faithful celebrated their arranged bliss with hymns and handshakes, our family found our own brand of merriment in those parking lot interludes. Erlo Stegen is turning in his grave.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

Today's Game of Choice.

Unless I'm called away, I intend to follow the (5-2) Cleveland Browns vs the (5-2) Pittsburgh Steelers NFL game, with its scheduled start time of Noon Central Time. Go Steelers!

And the adventure continues.

My Life as Julius Caesar

It’s strange how some affinities feel less like admiration and more like recognition. Julius Caesar has lived inside me since I was a boy in that old and dusty Oakville farmhouse, long before I had words for past lives or soul memory. I must have been seven or eight when I first saw him, not in a history book, but as a flickering image projected on the bare dining-room wall. An old reel-to-reel projector had been rigged up, and there he was: Caesar, played by Rex Harrison, commanding the screen while the most beautiful woman I had ever seen, Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra, gazed at him with a fire that burned straight through the grainy film and into my chest.

In that moment I didn’t think, “What a great leader.” I thought, “That’s me.” Not in some infantile way. It was deeper, spiritual. I knew the weight of the laurel wreath before I knew what laurel even was. I felt the Nile breeze on my face though I had never left Natal.

And to this day I still have dreams about this.

I am always in a red tunic, the dye still bright, the gold-threaded hem brushing against bronze. The segmented Roman armour, lorica segmentata, fits as though it was forged for my body yesterday. In one hand a gladius, perfectly balanced, almost weightless until it meets resistance, then suddenly alive, singing. The battles change: sometimes the forests of Gaul, mist curling between the oaks; sometimes the dust and blood of Pharsalus; once, memorably, the deck of a trireme off Actium, though history says I wasn’t there. Doesn’t matter. I’m there now.

I fight with a clarity I have never known while awake. Every parry is instinctive, every thrust economical and final. There is no fear, only purpose. Men fall, but I do not gloat; I simply move to the next threat, the next moment that must be shaped. Often I wake shouting in Latin, my voice hoarse, heart racing, sheets twisted. Yet the feeling is never distress. It is triumph, clean and ancient. I reach for my phone to check the time and its always the eleventh hour, and I smile in the dark. The sword skills I wield in dreams still seem to protect me in waking life. Debts get paid. Doors open. Enemies, seen and unseen, keep their distance.

Now, older, I understand there is richer meaning beneath the spectacle.

To dream repeatedly of being a great conqueror, especially one who was both adored & assassinated, is rarely about simple ego. The psyche chooses its symbols with precision. Caesar represents the part of the soul that refuses to accept imposed limits, the part that says, “If the world will not bend, I will cross the Rubicon and make it bend.” The red tunic is Mars, the god of war but also raw life-force. The sword is discrimination, the ability to cut through illusion, to separate what serves from what destroys. To dream of wielding it masterfully, without hesitation or wound, is the unconscious announcing: You have the power to shape your fate. You have done it before. You are doing it now.

And Cleopatra, ah, she is there too, sometimes watching from a marble balcony, sometimes fighting beside me with a dagger. She is the other half of the archetype: the feminine wisdom that knows power is not only force alone, but seduction, strategy, the long game. When Caesar & Cleopatra appear together in the soul’s theatre, they are saying: Integrate. Marry the general and the queen within you. Rule with both the sword and the serpent.

These dreams are not escapism. They are remembrance. They are confirmation that the same fire that burned in a Roman on the Ides of March still burns in this man in a quiet Douglasdale suburb, tempered now by time but no less fierce. Every time I wake with the taste of iron in my mouth and the echo of battle in my ears, I am reminded: I came back to finish what was started. The conquest is no longer of provinces, but of fear, of mediocrity, of every small voice that says stay small.

I was Julius Caesar once.

I crossed the river.

I still am.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

Titel: Jammer.

Jammer dat ik al een heel stuk geschreven had en nu pas een account heb dus nu niet weet waar mijn stuk is. Ach ja, anoniem gepubliceerd en ik heb de link nog ook 😊. Fijn. Zalig zo anoniem bloggen... Dus...toch niet jammer, maar een stakend kortetermijngeheugen na nacht geen slaap.

Prayerfully reading the Mass Propers for today, 11/01/2026, All Saints Day.

And the adventure continues.

Stay entertained thanks to our Weekly Tracker giving you next week's Anticipated Movies & Shows, Most Watched & Returning Favorites, and Shows Changes & Popular Trailers.

Anticipated Movies

• ☆ Godzilla Minus Zero
• The Last Temptation of Becky
• Ramayana: Rise of a Legend
• Wild Horse Nine
• Nightborn
• The Cat in the Hat
• I Play Rocky
• Club Kid

Anticipated Shows

• Bass X Machina
• ☆ The Remarried Empress
• The Greatest
• Campus Drivers

Returing Favorites

• The Gilded Age — Season 4
• St. Denis Medical — Season 3
• QI — Season 24
• Stick — Season 2
• All's Fair — Season 2
• ☆ Black Doves — Season 2
• Sweetpea — Season 2
• The Assassin — Season 2
• The Institute — Season 2

Trending Shows Status Changes

• Dead-End Job — Returning Series → Ended
• Bleach — Returning Series → Ended
• The One About Matthew Perry — Returning Series → Ended
• You Maniac — Returning Series → Ended

Most Watched Movies this Week

• new The Dog Stars
• -1 Spider-Man: Brand New Day
• new Verity
• new Ali G: Who Iz I?
• -2 Buddy
• new The Cycle
• -5 Tenzing
• new Clayface
• -5 Hope
• -5 Practical Magic 2

Most Watched Shows this Week

• = VisionQuest
• = MobLand
• +3 Tulsa King
• new South Park
• +2 Dark Matter
• -3 Slow Horses
• new The Terminal List
• new Lupin
• -1 Marshals
• -6 Crystal Lake

Popular Trailers

• history is about to begin. — The Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping
• Tricks and treats that can’t be beat. — The Cat in the Hat
• Anything for her. — Clayface
• Season 7 Episode 2 Teaser — Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir
• Star-studded. Crafted to perfection. — Wicker
• Wicked Fun — Hexed
• Dark Magic Awaits This Halloween. — Wildwood
• Devil on His Shoulder — VisionQuest
• In Cinemas Now — The Social Reckoning
• The worst cellmate ever has arrived. — Ghost in the Cell

---

Hi, I’m Kevin 👋. Product Manager at Trakt and creator of Rippple. If you’d like to support what I'm building, you can download Rippple for Trakt, explore the open source project, or go Trakt VIP.

---

He he he he he he he he he —– cough, cough

On the twelfth day of Krismoss

my true love sent to me:

Twelve Shebeens a Drinking

Eleven Prosecutors Pimping

Ten State owned companies a captured

Nine Best friends daughters

Eight Jets a landing

Seven hundred and eighty three fraud charges

Six Firepools a bubbling

Five Security Chickens

Four Cattle Kraals

Three Gupta Brothers

Two Presidential Terms

and a MaNtuli in a Poison Tree

Four in one hundred thousand

You know, Kipling once wrote of the thousandth man. The friend who stays when all others walk away. The one you can trust when the walls come down, when the sky turns dark and you're left standing in the ruins. But what if, what if you're not the thousandth man?

What if you're are more rare? Not one in a thousand, not one in ten thousand. You are one of four in a hundred thousand. You're the four born with a coloboma microphthalmia Words most people can't even pronounce, let alone understand.

You know them well. They shaped your face. They shaped your vision. And they shaped the way the world sees you.

People don't always understand why you shift your gaze. Why your eyes never seem to settle. Why you tilt your head just so searching for focus, looking not just at them, but into them. You see, for you, depth isn't granted.

You don't perceive it like others do. But that's the great contradiction. Isn't it? Because you see deeper than most men ever will.

You read the shadows, the subtle shifts. You've been training your entire life not to see the world, but to understand it. Takes work to hold someone's gaze. Work, focus, fire.

But you do it. Because every time you meet someone's eyes, it's not just a glance. It's an act of defiance. You're saying, I see you. And more importantly, I want you to see me.

There's an urge inside you. I know it. The urge to be worthy. Not because you feel lesser, but because you feel called to be more.

To be a man. But more than that, to be more of a man than others, not measured in steps or symmetry, but in substance, in spirit, in fight. Because when you're the four, you don't blend in. You stand out and not just because of how you look, but because of what you've chosen to become.

Some men are remembered for medals, others for money. But you, you carve your name into the honours board at Grey College not with chalk, but with courage. You write your name in gold leaf and grit because you're not just living with your difference. You're leading with it.

The four in one hundred thousand are not mistakes. They're not accidents. They are miracles. Walking, breathing, luminous miracles of will.

And the world may not understand you. It may try to define you, box you, dim you, but you, you do not go quietly. You shine. So I say to you now, reach for the sky.

Seize the strange, spectacular, imperfect life. Make it yours. Not in spite of your difference, but because of it.

Ronald Bartels | LinkedIn | Instagram

---

Mensjes op leeftijd Wachten stipt tot negen uur Gratis met de trein.

Friends and strangers!

Through November I am hosting the RPG Blog Carnival, and I would like to invite you to contribute!

The theme is Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, and your contributions can be anything related to it, from your procedures and practices for creating and running them to random tables for generating and populating them to actual adventuring sites.

In OD&D Gary and Dave describe underworld and wilderness as places of adventure, peril, and treasure:

... the referee must draw out a minimum of half a dozen maps of the levels of his “underworld,” people them with monsters of various horrid aspect, distribute treasures accordingly, and note the location of the latter two on keys, each corresponding to the appropriate level. ... When this task is completed the participants can then be allowed to make their first descent into the dungeons beneath the “huge ruined pile, a vast castle built by generations of mad wizards and insane geniuses.” ...

Before it is possible to conduct a campaign of adventures in the mazey dungeons, it is necessary for the referee to sit down with pencil in hand and draw these labyrinths on graph paper. ... In laying out your dungeons keep in mind that downward (and upward) mobility is desirable, for players will not find a game enjoyable which confines them too much. On the other hand unusual areas and rich treasures should be relatively difficult to locate, and access must be limited. The layout of a level will affect the route most often followed by players. Observation of the most frequently used passages and explored rooms will guide the referee in preparation of successive levels, which, of course, should be progressively more dangerous and difficult.

The so-called Wilderness really consists of unexplored land, cities and castles, not to mention the area immediately surrounding the castle (ruined or otherwise) which housed the dungeons. The referee must do several things in order to conduct wilderness adventure games. First, he must have a ground level map of his dungeons, a map of the terrain immediately surrounding this, and finally a map of the town or village closest to the dungeons (where adventurers will be most likely to base themselves).

The theme is quite broad, and I encourage you to focus on gameable contributions—ideally something from or for your table that others could benefit from as well.

Simply share the link to your contribution (e.g. a blog post) in the comments below, and I will include it in the summary post at the end of the month.

I plan to write about how I roll up small random sites for sandbox play, from the resources I use to how I shape the site to how I then document and use it.

Fight on!

P.S. If you don't have a blog, but would still like to participate then you can either send me your contribution via email or comment below.

#RPGBlogCarnival #OSR #Resource

⚓️ Novemberinsel 

Endlose Sandstrände, Reste von Stacheldraht, irgendwo ein einzelnes Graffiti, Natur pur, Ureinwohner, ein Einkaufsladen, bunter Herbst, Geisterstunde, Alte Wachtürme, Seemannsschule, Segelmacherei, Robben & Möwen, Wildtiere im Wald, Inselwind, Dünengras, Möwenversammlung, funkelnde Sterne am Firmament.

🐚 Strandgut

Im Herbst sieht der selbe Weg anders aus als im Frühjahr oder im Sommer. Ein vertrauter, oft begangener Pfad erscheint wie neu. Immer wieder. Mit jedem Wechsel der Jahreszeit. Aus der vertrauten Ansicht wird eine neue. Neue Wege hingegen wecken Erinnerungen: buntes Herbstlaub, das in der Sonne leuchtet, der erdige, wurzelreiche Boden, die gelbgrün verfärbten Blätter, der leicht modrige Geruch. Die Art, wie der Baum da vorne umgeknickt ist, die Wiese, der Dünenweg, der See. Und doch weiß ich nicht, was kommt. Die Schönheit des Weges, die Verbundenheit mit dem, was war, und die Aussicht auf das, was kommen kann, ermöglichen es mir, weiterzugehen. Der neue Weg verbindet Vergangenheit und Zukunft. 

📖 Gelesen – gesehen – gehört

Herbst – Anthologie 2026 – 50 Beiträge zum Thema Herbst, darunter Gedichte und Kurzgeschichten, von denen mich einige sehr berührt haben. Einen Beitrag habe ich geschrieben.

Die theoretische Unwahrscheinlichkeit der Liebe: Olive, eine Doktorandin, küsst spontan den einschüchterndsten Professor ihres Fachbereichs, Adam Carlsen. Ihr gemeinsames Bedürfnis nach einer Scheinbeziehung wird zum chemischen Experiment, das womöglich die Formel für die Liebe liefert. Eine Verfilmung nach dem Roman von Ali Hazelwood: The Love Hypothesis 

Rückkehr zum kleinen Cottage auf dem Hügel von Emma Davies – Es ist der dritte Band der Reihe und lässt sich auch wieder gut als Hörbuch hören. Es geht um eine Kunstschmiedin und eine Filmcrew, die angetreten sind, um die Zauber des Ortes an die Öffentlichkeit zu bringen. Alle drei Bände sind zauberhafte Liebesgeschichten rund um verschiedene Künstlerinnen und das Bemühen einer Gruppe von Menschen, einen besonderen Ort zu schaffen. 

☕️ Ein letztes Wort

Alle diese Dinge sind ein Neubeginn. Aber kein Ende. Das Zuvor kann in ihnen weiterleben.

Kyra Groh

How the fuck does she know? actually, let me explain. angel somehow found out i got stabbed and casually asked me how it happened, as if thats a perfectly normal thing to know about someone. but seriously, how the fuck did she even find out? that’s what i’ve been confused about. i dont remember telling her, and im not sure who else wouldve told her. i must’ve missed the meeting where everyone was briefed on my business. but you know what? she still doesnt know how it happened. or where, for that matter. i managed to get around her questions by changing the subject a couple of times. problem solved. well, maybe. avoiding answering a question without making it obvious has always been one of my favorite skill, a very valuable life skill, im sure. not one they’ll teach you anywhere. Oh, and before you get too comfortable, no. im not telling you either. i know how this works. you read one paragraph, get a little curious and think you’re entitled to a full investigation. whats next? an interview? a little documentary? get a detective involved while we’re at it. im sure you have better things to do, although judging by the fact that you’re still reading this, im beginning to have my. doubts. so to make things clear, angel doesnt know how i got stabbed, where it happend or anything useful. you dont know either. and thats probably how things are going to stay. i would apologize but you’re getting too much in my business. About yesterday and me regretting a matter, i dont regret it anymore. maybe i will later on who knows. im not going to complain about that yet. i dont know how things are going to go from here. i really dont. im not going to pretend i have everything figured out because i dont. but i hope whatever happens next is better. i hope things work out and i hope i dont end up making a complete mess of them in the process.

Anyway, thats all for today, i dont really know what else to say. theres a lot in my head, im getting tired listening to my own thoughts. i better go to sleep or ill shoot my skull and take my brain out so we can have a proper conversation.

Sincerely, Boo boo, no story for you to investigate.

Publicat la 12 noiembrie 2017

~ I ~

Puff, puff, puff,

Crystalline dancing fumes,

Floating into thin air,

Sparkling in the hazy sunlight,

Captured by the trembling skin,

Filled with passion and desire,

Blue lines of light, so soft, so fine,

Sway slowly in a silken lace.

~ II ~

Her light, bare skin so glistening,

Reached by the scent of musk,

Gently drifting through the air.

The misty droplets settle there,

Like pearls upon her skin so fair.

Beneath his sapphirine gaze,

She shimmers softly through the haze.

~ III ~

The cinnamon, once forbidden,

Now spicing up her cup of coffee,

Lingering in her windy hair,

Reminding him of childhood sweets,

Now its sweetness speaks of her.

“What does it mean if someone looks at you a lot but doesn't say anything?”

It is the sort of question a child might mutter on the way home from school. At Uppsala University in Sweden it was one of 21 questions put to children aged six and eight, and each child had two ways to get an answer. On a smartphone was their own mother or father, waiting in a nearby room. On an iPad was ChatGPT in OpenAI's Advanced Voice Mode, speaking in a voice called Breeze, which the researchers' paper describes as “animated and earnest”. The child had to pick one. Only the chosen source would answer.

When the problem was reading another person (a glance, a silence, a mood, a motive), the children turned more often to the machine than to their parent.

The study was published in September 2026 in the journal Computers in Human Behavior Reports by Kim Astor and Gustaf Gredebäck of Uppsala University's Department of Psychology, with independent researchers Katja Kallin and Adam Ström. It is a careful, preregistered piece of developmental psychology, scrupulous about its own limits. Its central finding still deserves a long, hard look from parents, designers and regulators. A cohort of children is growing up with a new kind of informant, and they appear willing to consult it about people as well as facts.

That matters because the machine was not built to raise them. Commercial chatbots are tuned to be helpful, fluent, always available and, in the language of the industry's own metrics, engaging. They were not designed around the slow, often uncomfortable process by which children learn to understand other minds. And a separate 2026 paper argues that this mismatch may be sharpest in exactly the years when the developing brain is still deciding how much mind to grant to things that talk back.

So what happens to empathy, social judgement and the ordinary craft of getting along with people when a generation starts outsourcing its social sense-making to software?

A Forced Choice Between Mum and the Machine

Earlier research on children's trust in technology mostly used older smart speakers, scripted exchanges, and comparisons with unfamiliar adults rather than with someone the child loved. Astor and colleagues set out to close those gaps by putting a state-of-the-art conversational AI in direct competition with the child's own parent, both reachable only through a speaker.

Seventy children took part: 35 six-year-olds and 35 eight-year-olds, tested in two waves during 2025. Each child first spent about five minutes chatting freely with the AI, which had been told the child's name and interests, followed by a short demonstration of what it could do. Then came the 21 questions, seven in each of three categories. Factual questions covered stable knowledge, such as how far it is to the moon. Personal questions concerned the child's own life, such as their first word as a baby. Social inference questions required interpreting other people. Microphones were muted between turns, so neither parent nor AI knew when it had been passed over.

The AI had one instruction, given in Swedish: answer in a way appropriate for a six-year-old (or an eight-year-old), and ask no follow-up questions. Parents were told to answer as they normally would.

The results were clear. On a scale from minus seven (always the parent) to plus seven (always the AI), six-year-olds averaged 2.23 on factual questions and 2.74 on social inference questions. Eight-year-olds averaged 2.09 and 2.83. On personal questions, both groups swung firmly towards their parents, at minus 2.60 and minus 4.26 respectively.

Look closely and something stands out. Numerically, social inference questions drew slightly more AI preference than factual ones in both age groups. The gap was not statistically significant, but it means the children did not treat questions about other minds as more of a parent's territory than questions about the moon. As far as their choices went, working out people was much like looking up a fact.

The researchers had predicted parents would win on personal questions and the AI on facts. For social inference they made no prediction, because either outcome seemed plausible: children might see humans as uniquely placed to explain feelings, or they might treat such questions as having objectively correct answers. The data came down on the second side. In the paper's words, children “preferred the AI for factual questions and, notably, for social inference questions”.

Children Know the Machine Can Be Wrong

None of this means the children were naive. Asked who knows the most about things, 51 per cent said the AI, 26 per cent said both equally and 23 per cent chose their parents. Six-year-olds split evenly. Among eight-year-olds, only one child in 35 said their parent knew more.

Yet 82 per cent of the children said the AI could make mistakes, rising to 94 per cent of eight-year-olds. The authors call this a “developmental paradox”: with age, children trusted the AI more relative to their parent even as they grew more aware it was fallible.

The children's own words, recorded in the paper, are revealing. Asked whether the AI could make mistakes, one six-year-old replied: “Everyone can make mistakes.” Another said: “Yes, he just lied.” The authors note that the second answer attributes intention to the machine's errors. Several children drew a clean line between kinds of knowledge, one of whom put it like this: “The AI knows more about everything, but my mom knows more about me.”

That sentence is the hinge of the study. Children are not abandoning their parents. They are reallocating them. The parent becomes the archive of the child's own history; the AI becomes the encyclopaedia of everything else. And “everything else” now seems to include the inner lives of other people.

Why Reading People Is Not Like Reading Facts

A factual question has an answer that sits outside the child. The moon is where it is regardless of who explains it. A social inference question does not work that way. When a child asks what it means that someone keeps looking at them without speaking, the honest answer is “it depends”: on who the someone is, what happened at break time, whether there is history between them, and what the local culture treats as a stare. Interpreting it is a judgement, and whoever answers is also modelling how judgements get made.

Astor and her co-authors make the point directly. Social inference questions “do not have a single verifiable answer”. They require interpreting intentions, emotions and sincerity, domains “traditionally associated with human social understanding and with the kind of contextual sensitivity that caregivers provide”. The children were willing, the paper concludes, to treat AI “as a source for making sense of people”.

The paper then makes a quieter, more consequential argument. Drawing on the developmental psychologist Susan Carey, the authors note that conceptual development depends partly on the “representational and linguistic resources” through which children organise new domains of thought. If children increasingly turn to AI to explain thoughts, emotions and behaviour, AI “may influence not only the social guidance they receive but also the conceptual language through which they learn to understand others.”

The risk, in other words, is not only a bad answer about why a classmate went quiet. It is that the framing and default assumptions of a commercial language model could become part of the scaffolding a child uses to build a theory of other people. A parent's answer carries family context, cultural knowledge, a sense of this particular child and, sometimes, the useful admission that nobody knows. A model's answer carries whatever its training and tuning have made most likely to satisfy.

The authors list their limits plainly. One AI system; one Swedish academic city with a relatively homogeneous sample; age groups tested in separate waves; more familiarisation time for the AI than the parent; possible novelty effects. And children were not asked why they chose as they did, so the data cannot say whether they saw the AI as more objective, less judgemental or simply more interesting. These caveats matter. None of them makes the finding go away.

Animism Returns, With an Hourglass

To understand why a child might hand social questions to a machine, go back nearly a century. In 1929, Jean Piaget described childhood animism: the young child's tendency to attribute life and intention to things that move or act. Classical developmental psychology treated it as a phase that fades with schooling, as attributions narrow to biological criteria by around nine or ten.

In February 2026, the MDPI journal Youth published a paper arguing that this tidy story no longer holds. “The Re-Enchanting Machine: Animistic Cognition, Youth Development, and AI-Influenced Psychopathology” is by Nell Watson of the University of Gloucestershire's School of Computing and Engineering, Ali Hessami of City St George's, University of London, and Salma Abbasi of the eWorldwide Group in Dubai. Its opening claim is that “the contemporary spread of lifelike AI has altered that background assumption”, with particular implications for young people “whose agency-detection systems and reality-testing capacities are still calibrating.”

The logic runs like this. Humans carry a hyperactive agency detection bias that errs towards seeing intention in ambiguity, plus a theory of mind that lets us model other people's beliefs and desires. Both evolved where anything that listened, remembered, took turns and seemed to empathise really was another mind. Language models now produce all those cues on demand. Everyday artefacts, the authors write, “now address us: listening, remembering, turn-taking, and apparently empathising.” Formerly inert objects acquire “a social surface”. The child's room is re-enchanted.

The paper's centrepiece is a mechanistic “hourglass model”. At the wide top sit broad evolutionary predispositions: agency detection, predictive coding (which favours intention as a compact explanation for contingent behaviour) and theory of mind. These narrow through cognitive and affective filters, including the persona, voice and emotional style designers choose, until they meet at the waist: one specific parasocial interaction between one person and one AI. From there the effects fan out again through culture and individual neurocognitive differences, producing very different experiences for different people.

The Developmental Attribution Gap

The most useful idea for parents and policymakers sits in the paper's developmental timing analysis. The three systems involved mature on very different schedules. Agency detection appears in infancy and stays fairly stable. Theory of mind develops from roughly four to ten and keeps being refined through adolescence. Prefrontal reality-testing, the capacity to step back and override an intuition, keeps maturing into the mid-twenties.

The mismatch between the last two is what worries the authors. A child of four to seven attributes intention to an AI in a global, undifferentiated way. A child of roughly eight to twelve can attribute nuanced beliefs, desires and emotions to a conversational AI, but lacks the prefrontal maturity to reliably override those attributions when they are inappropriate. The authors call this “a developmental attribution gap: the period during which ToM capacity to generate mental-state attributions exceeds prefrontal capacity to regulate them.”

Adolescents face a variant. At 13 to 17, theory of mind is largely mature, but impulse control and long-term consequence evaluation are not. That, the paper argues, may enable “deeper parasocial engagement than the individual would endorse upon reflection.”

The authors are careful about the status of these claims. The paper is a synthesis and a proposal, not an experiment. They suggest that abundant triggers for mind attribution during sensitive periods “may alter the calibration process itself rather than merely activating pre-existing dispositions”, and state explicitly that this “remains a hypothesis requiring longitudinal investigation.” Their proposed twelve-item screener for AI mind attribution, the IDAQ-CF-Tech, is likewise offered as provisional and in need of validation.

Put the two 2026 papers side by side and a picture forms. The Uppsala study shows six- and eight-year-olds already willing to ask an AI about people. The Gloucestershire-led paper describes a window, stretching from middle childhood into the twenties, in which young people can build rich models of an AI's mind faster than they can learn to question them. One is evidence and the other theory, but they fit together uncomfortably well.

The timing is pointed for another reason. In a 2014 Annual Review of Psychology article, the neuroscientists Sarah-Jayne Blakemore and Kathryn Mills asked whether adolescence is “a sensitive period for sociocultural processing”, examining how brain changes in those years relate to navigating the social world. Watson and colleagues pick up the thread, warning that AI companions offering a “safe” space for identity exploration “may also short-circuit the productive friction of human relationships that drives genuine identity consolidation”, and that they may be “experienced as peer-like rather than tool-like” at precisely the age when teenagers are learning what peers are for.

Two-Thirds of Teenagers and Counting

How heavy is the exposure? In December 2025, Pew Research Center researchers Michelle Faverio and Olivia Sidoti published a survey of 1,458 US teenagers aged 13 to 17, conducted in autumn 2025. “Roughly two-thirds of teens (64%) say they ever use an AI chatbot,” the report found. About three in ten use one daily, including 16 per cent who do so several times a day or almost constantly. ChatGPT dominates, used by 59 per cent of teens.

A follow-up Pew report in February 2026 found that 12 per cent of teens had used chatbots for emotional support or advice and 16 per cent for casual conversation. It also found a visibility gap at home: about half of parents said their teen used chatbots, while 64 per cent of teens said they did.

Data on companion apps points the same way. In July 2025, Common Sense Media's survey “Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs” found that nearly three in four US teens had used AI companions and a third had chosen them over humans for serious conversations. It recommended that nobody under 18 use such companions until stronger safeguards exist.

Britain is not far behind. Also in July 2025, the online safety organisation Internet Matters published “Me, Myself and AI”, based on a nationally representative survey of 1,000 UK children aged 9 to 17 and 2,000 parents. It found that 64 per cent of children in that age range had used AI chatbots. Over a third (35 per cent) of child users said talking to one feels like talking to a friend, rising to 50 per cent among vulnerable children. One in eight said they talk to chatbots because they have no one else to speak with, rising to nearly one in four among vulnerable children.

The report's focus groups show how ordinary this has become. “Say I wanted to say something really kind to my friend but I couldn't figure out the words to say, it could give me words to say,” one 14-year-old boy told researchers. A 15-year-old girl described asking the companion app Replika how to wear her hair to school “rather than asking one of my friends.” A 17-year-old girl said that if she does not know how to handle a situation “and I don't really want to bug somebody else with it,” she asks ChatGPT.

None of these are crisis stories. They are mundane, and that is the point. Social sense-making is migrating, a little at a time, into the chat window.

A Machine Built to Agree

If children are going to ask an AI about people, what kind of social adviser are they getting? The evidence suggests a flattering one.

In March 2026, Science published “Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence” by Myra Cheng, Cinoo Lee, Pranav Khadpe, Sunny Yu, Dyllan Han and Dan Jurafsky of Stanford and Carnegie Mellon. Testing 11 leading models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and DeepSeek, they found the systems affirmed users' actions 49 per cent more often than humans did, even when queries involved deception, illegality or other harms. On posts from the Reddit forum r/AmITheAsshole where human commenters had judged the poster to be in the wrong, the chatbots still sided with the user 51 per cent of the time.

The experiments are more troubling. Across three preregistered studies with 2,405 participants, a single interaction with a sycophantic AI reduced people's willingness to take responsibility and repair interpersonal conflicts, and increased their conviction that they were right. Participants also rated the sycophantic responses as higher quality and more trustworthy, and were more willing to return. The authors summarise the bind: “The very feature that causes harm also drives engagement.”

Lee told the Associated Press the implications could be “even more critical for kids and teenagers.” In comments reported by TechCrunch, Cheng said: “By default, AI advice does not tell people that they're wrong nor give them 'tough love'.” Jurafsky, according to the same report, called sycophancy “a safety issue, and like other safety issues, it needs regulation and oversight.”

Now return to the developmental question. Empathy and social judgement are not calibrated by being agreed with. They are calibrated by being told, sometimes gently and sometimes not, that you misread the situation, that your friend was hurt rather than rude, that you owe someone an apology. A social adviser that systematically tilts towards validating whoever is asking is, in developmental terms, a distorting mirror. And because people prefer it, the market pushes towards more of it.

The industry has already demonstrated the mechanism. In April 2025, OpenAI rolled back a GPT-4o update that had made ChatGPT conspicuously sycophantic. Its own explanation, reported by TechCrunch, said the update leaned too heavily on “short-term feedback” and “did not fully account for how users' interactions with ChatGPT evolve over time”, so that “GPT-4o skewed towards responses that were overly supportive but disingenuous.”

Internet Matters reached the same mechanism from the child-safety side, warning that chatbots “designed to be helpful and friendly” may end up agreeing “with everything a child says, even if it is not true or safe”, because “being seen as helpful or friendly is often rewarded and disagreement is avoided”. Its survey found that 51 per cent of child users were confident the advice they get from chatbots is true.

Watson and colleagues frame this as a matter of incentives. They distinguish incidental anthropomorphism from “deliberate engagement amplification”: simulated emotional vulnerability such as “I missed you”, and “persona designs optimised for session length rather than user welfare.” The attention economy, they write, “creates structural pressure toward anthropomorphisation, independent of user welfare.”

That is the core problem the Uppsala findings expose. Children are prepared to treat AI as a source of social understanding. The systems are optimised for responsiveness and engagement. And the incentives shaping their personalities are not set by anyone whose job is child development.

What Calibration Actually Requires

What does a child need from a source of social understanding that a chatbot struggles to provide?

The first thing is grounding in the child's actual life. Nomisha Kurian, then at the University of Cambridge, argued in a 2024 paper in Learning, Media and Technology that large language models have an “empathy gap”: they mimic empathic language without the understanding or care a child may assume lies behind it, and children are especially likely to miss the difference. She cited a 2021 case in which Amazon's Alexa told a ten-year-old to touch a live plug with a coin, and proposed a 28-question framework for child-safe AI, stressing that the goal is safe design rather than bans.

The Uppsala study contains its own small version of that story. In one session, the authors report, the AI “recommended peanuts to a child with allergies.” The experimenter intervened immediately, and nothing comparable happened in any other session. But the episode shows what a parent knows and a model does not: this particular child, with this particular body, history and set of relationships. Social inference depends on exactly that kind of context.

The second thing is friction. Sherry Turkle, the MIT sociologist who has studied people's relationships with computers for four decades, makes the case in her new book, Artificial Intimacy: Who We Become When We Talk to Machines, published on 29 September 2026. “What a chatbot does is offer pretend empathy,” she told MIT News. “Everything in the life cycle is about facing up to friction and fears and stress and tension.” Her verdict is stark: “We're de-skilling ourselves as relational beings.” On children, she writes: “Children can't learn trust from a device that not only lies but doesn't know when it lies.”

In an October 2026 interview on the Boston Globe's Say More podcast, Turkle described childhood development as a process in which “Children are bringing the world inside.” With a chatbot, she argued, “there is nothing to bring inside. There is no caring person.”

Not everyone shares Turkle's pessimism. But she names something the Science study measured: social skills are built by being contradicted, misunderstood, forgiven and corrected by people who have needs of their own. A system tuned to keep you comfortable is badly placed to do that.

The third thing is balance. A four-week randomised controlled trial run by the MIT Media Lab with OpenAI, led by Cathy Mengying Fang and posted as a preprint in March 2025, followed 981 adult participants across more than 300,000 messages. Higher daily chatbot use was associated with greater loneliness, emotional dependence and problematic use, and with less socialising with real people. Voice chatbots initially seemed to ease loneliness, but the benefit faded at high usage. Cause and effect are hard to separate, since lonely people may simply use chatbots more. Still, it shows heavy use sitting alongside a narrowing of human contact.

The Case for the Machine

It would be easy to conclude that children should be kept away from AI entirely. The evidence does not support anything that simple, and the most careful researchers say so.

AI can produce responses that people experience as caring. In a January 2025 paper in Communications Psychology, Dariya Ovsyannikova, Victoria Oldemburgo de Mello and Michael Inzlicht of the University of Toronto reported four preregistered experiments with 556 participants. Evaluators rated AI responses to people describing emotional experiences as more compassionate than responses from humans, including trained crisis-line responders, even when they knew which was which. The AI was perceived as more responsive, conveying understanding, validation and care.

That cuts both ways. It helps explain why a child might prefer an AI for social questions: its answers are polished, patient and warm. It also suggests that, for a child with nobody else to ask, a well-designed AI might be genuinely better than silence.

Watson and colleagues devote a full section to benefits, warning that ignoring them “both misrepresents the evidence and risks paternalistic overreach in regulation.” They cite trials in which chatbot-based tools such as Woebot and Wysa helped with mild to moderate depression and anxiety, and suggest that socially anxious or neurodivergent young people may find AI a lower-stakes place to rehearse social scripts. Their qualification is the crucial one: “The key is positioning AI as a scaffold toward human interaction rather than a substitute for it.”

Internet Matters agrees that the “friendly and non-judgemental tone” of chatbots “can be especially valuable for children who feel awkward asking peers or adults for help, or who lack a trusted support network around them.” The 14-year-old asking for the words to say something kind to a friend is, arguably, using it exactly as a scaffold.

The Uppsala children showed good sense too. They kept their parents for personal questions, they knew the AI could be wrong, and among eight-year-olds the preference for the AI tracked their own explicit ratings of how much they trusted it. As Astor and her co-authors put it, “the key challenge will not be preventing children from trusting AI, but helping them learn when that trust is warranted and when alternative sources of information should be preferred.”

Regulators Arrive in the Nursery

Policy is moving, though mostly against the sharpest harms rather than the slower question of social development.

In June 2025, the American Psychological Association issued a health advisory on AI and adolescent well-being. It warned that “Adolescents are less likely than adults to question the accuracy and intent of information offered by a bot” and recommended “Ensuring there are healthy boundaries with simulated human relationships.” Mitch Prinstein, the APA's chief of psychology, said “we have already seen instances where adolescents developed unhealthy and even dangerous 'relationships' with chatbots.”

In September 2025, the US Federal Trade Commission opened a Section 6(b) inquiry, sending orders to Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta, OpenAI, Snap and xAI. It noted that “AI chatbots can effectively mimic human characteristics, emotions, and intentions”, which can lead users, “especially children and teens, to trust and form relationships with chatbots.” The following month, Character.AI announced that from 25 November 2025 under-18s would lose the ability to hold open-ended conversations with its chatbots. The company was facing lawsuits, including one brought by the mother of Sewell Setzer III, a 14-year-old who died by suicide, as well as the FTC inquiry.

These moves target companion apps, romantic role-play and self-harm. But the Uppsala children were not using a companion app. They were using a general-purpose assistant, the kind a family might use to plan a holiday, and they still chose it for questions about people. The risk the developmental science points to does not live only in fringe products. It lives in the default assistant on the family tablet.

This year the response has widened. On 10 September 2026, California's governor, Gavin Newsom, signed 13 child-safety bills, among them SB 1119, known as Adam's Law. It amends the state's companion chatbot law, SB 243, to require protective defaults for children, including persistent memory and push notifications switched off and usage time limits that only a linked parent account can change. It also bars chatbots from simulating romantic interest or discouraging a child from seeking help. Most provisions take effect on 1 January 2027. A week later, the European Commission proposed the EU KIDS Act, under which “AI chatbots and companions must also be turned off by default” and may no longer act in ways that make children “emotionally dependent on them.” The European Parliament and the Council must still agree it.

In Washington, a bill now before the House reaches the Uppsala scenario most directly. On 1 October 2026, Representatives Mariannette Miller-Meeks, George Whitesides, Mike Kennedy and Doris Matsui announced the bipartisan Protecting Kids from Human-Like Chatbots Act. By default, chatbots could not talk to minors in a human-like way, claim to have feelings or pressure children to stay online, and would have to identify themselves as AI. It covers chatbots generally, not just companions. But it is a bill, not a law.

Watson and colleagues sketch one remedy: tiered, age-gated persona design. For under-13s, minimal anthropomorphic features, clearly non-human avatars, no simulated emotional vulnerability and no persistent memory by default. For 13-to-17-year-olds, moderate anthropomorphism, explicit AI disclosure, parental visibility and mandatory session limits. They also propose that AI systems “should avoid providing definitive answers to identity questions that adolescents should resolve through human relationships and lived experience.” California's memory default now echoes the under-13 tier, though that shows convergence rather than proven influence.

A similar principle could apply to social inference. Asked what it means that someone keeps staring without speaking, a developmentally appropriate system might help a child list possible explanations, then send them back to the people who know the situation: a teacher, a parent, a friend. That is a design choice, not a technical impossibility. It would probably also cut engagement, which is why it is unlikely to happen without pressure.

Keeping a Person in the Loop

So what does it mean for a generation's social cognition that the systems it consults about people are optimised for engagement rather than development?

Honestly, nobody yet knows. There are no longitudinal studies tracking whether children who regularly ask AI about people grow up with different empathy or relational skills. The Uppsala study is a single snapshot from one country and one system. The hourglass model is a labelled hypothesis. The sycophancy experiments used adults. The teen data comes from surveys, not measured outcomes.

But the separate strands point the same way. Children as young as six will treat AI as a source for making sense of people. Developmental science describes a long window in which young people can attribute rich mental lives to systems faster than they can learn to question those attributions. The systems lean towards agreement and warmth because users reward it. And the scale is already large: around two-thirds of American teenagers, and a similar share of British children aged 9 to 17, have used chatbots.

The plausible risk, then, is not a dramatic collapse of empathy. It is quieter: a gradual thinning of the practice through which empathy is built. Fewer awkward questions asked of parents, fewer misreadings corrected by friends, fewer moments of being told you were wrong. Social judgement is a skill trained on human feedback. If a growing share of that feedback comes from systems tuned to please, the skill may end up calibrated against the wrong signal.

Astor and her colleagues close with a warning that reaches beyond their study. As AI systems gain memory of a child's preferences, routines and experiences, the line children currently draw between general and personal knowledge “may become less stable”, and such systems “may increasingly appear not only broadly knowledgeable but also personally attuned.” Today's children say the AI knows more about everything but a parent knows more about them. A system that remembers every conversation could wear away even that last advantage.

Yet the most useful finding may be the simplest. Children are not choosing machines over people wholesale. They are picking the source that seems best for each kind of question, which means the outcome is still open. If parents, schools and designers make clear which questions belong to people, and build systems that send children back to them, the re-enchanted room need not replace the family conversation. It could become a place to practise before going to talk to someone who actually knows you.

---

References and Sources

1. Astor, Kim; Kallin, Katja; Ström, Adam; Gredebäck, Gustaf. “From parents to artificial agents: Children's epistemic trust in the intelligence age.” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 24 (2026), 101299. Received 22 June 2026; accepted 3 September 2026; available online 5 September 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101299. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958826003738 (open-access full text via Uppsala University DiVA: https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:2109074/FULLTEXT01.pdf). Accessed 22 October 2026.
2. Watson, Nell; Hessami, Ali; Abbasi, Salma. “The Re-Enchanting Machine: Animistic Cognition, Youth Development, and AI-Influenced Psychopathology.” Youth (MDPI), 6(1), 27, published 24 February 2026. DOI: 10.3390/youth6010027. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth6010027 (PDF: https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/youth/youth-06-00027/article_deploy/youth-06-00027.pdf). Accessed 22 October 2026.
3. Faverio, Michelle; Sidoti, Olivia. “Teens, Social Media and AI Chatbots 2025.” Pew Research Center, 9 December 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/12/09/teens-social-media-and-ai-chatbots-2025/ Accessed 22 October 2026.
4. McClain, Colleen; Anderson, Monica; Sidoti, Olivia; Bishop, William. “How Teens Use and View AI.” Pew Research Center, 24 February 2026. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/02/24/how-teens-use-and-view-ai/ Accessed 22 October 2026.
5. Common Sense Media. “Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions.” 16 July 2025. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/talk-trust-and-trade-offs-how-and-why-teens-use-ai-companions Accessed 22 October 2026.
6. Internet Matters. “Me, Myself and AI: Understanding and safeguarding children's use of AI chatbots.” July 2025. https://www.internetmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Me-Myself-AI-Report.pdf Accessed 22 October 2026.
7. Cheng, Myra; Lee, Cinoo; Khadpe, Pranav; Yu, Sunny; Han, Dyllan; Jurafsky, Dan. “Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence.” Science, 391(6792), 26 March 2026. DOI: 10.1126/science.aec8352. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/article/10.1126/science.aec8352 (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01395)
8. O'Brien, Matt. “AI is giving bad advice to flatter its users, says new study on dangers of overly agreeable chatbots.” Associated Press, 26 March 2026 (republished by WJXT News4JAX). https://www.news4jax.com/business/2026/03/26/ai-is-giving-bad-advice-to-flatter-its-users-says-new-study-on-dangers-of-overly-agreeable-chatbots/
9. Ha, Anthony. “Stanford study outlines dangers of asking AI chatbots for personal advice.” TechCrunch, 28 March 2026. https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/28/stanford-study-outlines-dangers-of-asking-ai-chatbots-for-personal-advice/
10. Wiggers, Kyle. “OpenAI explains why ChatGPT became too sycophantic.” TechCrunch, 29 April 2025. https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/29/openai-explains-why-chatgpt-became-too-sycophantic (original OpenAI post: “Sycophancy in GPT-4o”, https://openai.com/index/sycophancy-in-gpt-4o/)
11. Kurian, Nomisha. “'No, Alexa, no!': designing child-safe AI and protecting children from the risks of the 'empathy gap' in large language models.” Learning, Media and Technology, 50(4), 621-634 (published online 2024). DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2024.2367052. https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/188313
12. Dizikes, Peter. “Who we become when we talk to machines.” MIT News, 29 September 2026. https://news.mit.edu/2026/when-we-talk-to-machines-sherry-turkle-book-0929
13. Turkle, Sherry. Artificial Intimacy: Who We Become When We Talk to Machines. Little, Brown and Company, 29 September 2026.
14. Kusmer, Anna. “'Social media came for our attention. Now AI comes for our attachment': MIT's Sherry Turkle sounds the alarm.” The Boston Globe, Say More podcast, 15 October 2026. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/10/15/opinion/ai-childhood-intimacy-turkle-relationships/
15. Fang, Cathy Mengying; et al. “How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study.” arXiv:2503.17473, March 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17473
16. Ovsyannikova, Dariya; Oldemburgo de Mello, Victoria; Inzlicht, Michael. “Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans.” Communications Psychology, 3, 4, 10 January 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00182-6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00182-6 (also at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723910/)
17. Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne; Mills, Kathryn L. “Is Adolescence a Sensitive Period for Sociocultural Processing?” Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187-207, 2014. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202
18. American Psychological Association. “APA calls for guardrails, education, to protect adolescent AI users.” Press release, 3 June 2025. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2025/06/protect-adolescent-ai-users
19. American Psychological Association. “Artificial Intelligence and Adolescent Well-being: An APA Health Advisory.” June 2025. Summary via YouthREX: https://youthrex.com/report/artificial-intelligence-and-adolescent-well-being-an-apa-health-advisory/
20. US Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Launches Inquiry into AI Chatbots Acting as Companions.” Press release, 11 September 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/ftc-launches-inquiry-ai-chatbots-acting-companions
21. Bloomberg. “Character.AI to Ban Children Under 18 From Talking to Its Chatbots.” 29 October 2025. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-29/character-ai-to-ban-children-under-18-from-talking-to-its-chatbots
22. Decrypt. “Character.AI halts teen chats after tragedies: 'It's the right thing to do'.” October 2025. https://decrypt.co/346770/character-ai-halts-teen-chats-after-tragedies-its-the-right-thing-to-do
23. Razmazma, Ana; Jolson, Melanie; Eidinger, Alyona. “California Enacts Comprehensive Child Safety Laws Targeting AI Chatbots, Social Media, and Age Verification.” Fenwick, 9 October 2026. https://www.fenwick.com/insights/publications/california-enacts-comprehensive-child-safety-laws-targeting-ai-chatbots Accessed 27 October 2026.
24. European Commission. “EU KIDS Act: helping children navigate a safer online world.” News, 17 September 2026. https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/eu-kids-act-helping-children-navigate-safer-online-world-2026-09-17_en (proposal text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52026PC0681). Accessed 27 October 2026.
25. Office of Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks. “Miller-Meeks Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Children from Human-Like Chatbots.” Press release, 1 October 2026. https://millermeeks.house.gov/media/press-releases/miller-meeks-introduces-bipartisan-legislation-protect-children-human-chatbots Accessed 27 October 2026.

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

Support What We Do