I have to say, Nathaniel is a perfectly fine name. No nameshaming pls.
And I am totally limiting my daughter's "screen time." We may allow certain video games (she's not even 1, so we haven't started anything yet) when she is older, but t.v. will probably be off the table for a while. We don't even own a television set atm, so it's not much of an issue.
It's not arbitrary. There is evidence that limiting screen time can be beneficial. But to say the science is 100% is overstating it. No one is "bad" if they approach it differently. Just don't park your kid in front of the boob tube 24/7.
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Why do newer technologies and ways of life get shunned as being "unhealthy" and "bad" just because they are new and diverge from the traditional?
My typical explanation is to mutter "goddamn luddites".
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited July 2014
my parents more limited what was on the screen. Meaning I was limited to a screen time of 30 minutes because that's how long Bill Nye was on for and PBS was the only channel we got so there was nothing else to watch except for the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour.
gaming_librarianTurn your face to the sun...Registered Userregular
It's nice to hear other parents chiming in. I have a 2.5 year old and a new baby on the way. The knee jerk reaction to lump it all together is always bad. It's "kids these days" mentality all over again. When my son does watch tv it's PBS or Disney mostly, and I can already see that he's benefited intellectually and socially from them. We're gonna play games together; video games, board games, "outside" games, sports, whatever. I can't wait! Conversely, I have some family that are always talking about what "kids these days need to do and they play vidya games too much and rabble rabble". These folks also have one hobby: television. When they're not working they're zombied out until they pass out for bed. Eating? Watching tv. After dinner? Watching tv. That's it. But that's ok, see, cause they're watching the news and stuff (stuff being binging on reality tv and crap until bedtime). I don't get it.
When you get right down to it, we are, all of us, Gabe & Tycho included, couch-doctors when it comes to this. We're basing our ideas on what's best for our kids on our own preconceived notions, what happened to us when we were kids ("AND WE TURNED OUT JUST FINE!"), and whatever latest paper, video, blog we just absorbed that seemed to resonate best with us.
Limit your kids screentime or don't. Maybe it'll help them in some way, or maybe it won't. We're all just kind of fumbling along here the best we can. At the end of the day, chances are pretty good, that all our kids will TURN OUT JUST FINE. So lets just stop the judgement on both sides.
"They" will tell you to limit your child's screentime as much as possible until they are 2 years old. Who is they, I dunno, doctors I suppose, but it resonates with me and so I'm planning on doing it with my 10-month old. Does that mean I'm never putting on Sesame Street or Mickey Mouse Club or letting her play with my phone between now & her second birthday? Ha. I can tell you that's already out the window. But I'm still very cognisant of what & how much she's watching.
But I am limiting it because of the amount of brain growth that happens in that time-period I worry about the synapse links that are being generated. After two, I'll be less restrictive and less and less as time goes on. As was mentioned earlier, in this day & age, eliminating screentime is nigh-impossible. So don't. Your kid will be fine.
And yes, as screen-time of any sort matters (to an extent), the content matters probably moreso. So what they're interacting with in terms of TV or video games is naturally important. Things that can hold their attention without stifling their creativity is huge or resorting to distracting tactics is a big deal. When kids have TV/video games as their primary means of expressing/digesting creative content then it limits their own creative abilities when presented with something that has no specific context.
For me, I think that making sure they get a "healthy" balance of media consumption (TV/video games) & real-world interaction is key. What is healthy is probably different for kid to kid, and family to family. But I don't think media consumption should have the larger percentage. I'd much rather play Apples to Apples with my daughter or Legos or build a fort out of cushions be the larger percentage.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to point at Gabe and his decision to let his kid play Minecraft all day long and call him a bad parent. I don't think that. I don't know that. I'm just doing the best I can with my kid. That's enough for me.
Saying a kid is going to become a violent criminal because his parents limit the amount of time he spends on video games/the internet is just about exactly as silly as thinking a kid is going to turn into a violent criminal because he spends too much time on video games/the internet.
The video that Quix linked to says precisely that the content matters. Mr Rogers causes no increase, PowerPuff Girls causes a noticeable increase and Violence causes a huge increase. So yes, content matters greatly.
No it does not. The simple presence of a turned on screen in the same room as a young kid has profound impact on the kid cognitive development and growth (the younger the kid the more profound the impact). Then again Mr Rogers vs PowerPuff Girls may show a difference in resulting violent behavior, but both will have a similar impact on the kid development and growth. You have to understand how a child develops to understand how screens are interfering with kid's growth.
I'm calling bullshit on the bolded part until you post the actual study that says a passive activity like watching tv has the same effect overall as a participative activity like video games.
You can call bs all you want, it won't change anything about it. It's not about content or being passive vs participative, but about screens interfering with the kids cognitive growth and development and replacing other activities. Screens all bears similar consequences such as performing worse at school, attention deficit, increased risk of obesity, sleep disturbance, language acquisition, etc.
My copy of the book is an ocean apart so I can't provide the actual references, All I can provide is the following quote from the author, so I encourage you to make your own research of those studies about the effects of video games on children.
Q: L'effet des jeux vidéos ne vous semble-t-il pas plus important que celui de la télé ? (sur les contre-performances scolaires donc sur l'attention, la cognition etc...)
A: Il m'a semblé difficile de traiter dans un même texte de la télé et des jeux vidéo. En effet, ces derniers ont été largement étudiés depuis plus de 10 ans et la recension de cette littérature demanderait à elle seule un ouvrage. Cela étant dit, les données scientifiques disponibles montrent clairement que les jeux vidéo ont des effets aussi négatifs que la télé (voir même plus négatifs) dans nombre de domaines dont l'attention, la réussite scolaire, l'obésité, l'agressivité, le sommeil, etc. Il est donc effectivement tout à fait nécessaire, j'en conviens, de prêter attention aussi aux jeux vidéos.
Pourtant, on ne peut pas dire que les enfants/ados passent plus de temps devant les jeux vidéo (ou internet) que devant la télé. S'il n'existe pas en France, à ma connaissance, de données fiables, plusieurs études de grande ampleur ont été publiées aux Etats-Unis. Dans ce pays, les 8-18 ans passent en moyenne chaque jour 1h15 à jouer aux jeux vidéo et 2h40 à regarder la télé. Si l'on substitue à la notion de télé celle de contenu audiovisuel regardé (sur Tv, ordinateur, téléphone portable ou autres) ce dernier chiffre monte à 4h30. Ce qui est intéressant ici c'est que se sont les individus qui regardent le plus la télé qui jouent aussi le plus aux jeux vidéo. En d'autres termes, ces différentes pratiques ne se compensent pas ; elles se cumulent (et parfois s'entrechoquent — multitasking —). Le temps d'écran est alors pris sur d'autres domaines dont les activités sportives, artistiques ou sociales, les devoirs, la lecture et le sommeil. Ce dernier champ est d'ailleurs particulièrement touché. Enfants et adolescents présentent une dette de sommeil croissante et alarmante dans nos pays dits développés, ce qui affecte aussi bien les fonctions cognitives (attention, apprentissage, mémorisation) que les paramètres sanitaires (immunité, obésité, dépression, etc.).
Bien sûr les Etats-Unis ne sont pas la France. Les études sur la télé et l'usage d'internet montrent toutefois que les grandes tendances "numériques" sont similaires dans tous les pays développés. Il serait dès lors surprenant que le rapport d'usage entre télé et jeux vidéo soit totalement inversé chez les jeunes français par rapport aux jeunes américains, anglais ou allemands. Evidemment, ce ne sont là que des moyennes. Celles-ci masquent forcément l'existence de larges variabilités interindividuelles. On trouvera toujours dans la population certains ados/enfants qui passent plus de temps face aux jeux vidéo que devant la télé (et d'autres qui ne regardent que la télé sans jamais jouer à un jeu vidéo). Typiquement toutefois, les 8-18 ans passent plus de temps devant la télé que face aux jeux vidéos. MD (06/2011)
Courtesy of Google Translate, presented without comment:
Q: Does not the effect of video games seem more important than TV? (School performances against so on attention, cognition, etc.)
A: It seemed difficult to treat in a single text the TV and video games. Indeed, they have been widely studied for over 10 years and review of the literature would require a book in itself. That said, the available scientific data clearly show that video games also have negative effects that TV (or even more negative) in many areas, including attention, academic achievement, obesity, aggression, sleep, etc.. It is actually quite necessary, I agree, to pay attention also to video games.
Yet we can not say that children / teens spend more time playing video games (or internet) than watching TV. If it does not exist in France, to my knowledge, reliable data, several large studies have been published in the United States. In this country, 8-18 years spend an average of 1:15 each day playing video games and watching TV 2:40. If we substitute the notion of audiovisual content that TV watching (on TV, computer, mobile phone or other) it rises to 4.30. What is interesting here is that these are the people who watch more TV also play most video games. In other words, these practices do not compensate; they accumulate (and sometimes collide - multitasking -). Screen time is then taken from other areas, including sports, arts and social activities, homework, reading and sleeping. This last field is also particularly affected. Children and adolescents have a sleep debt increasing and alarming in our so-called developed countries, affecting cognitive function (attention learning, memory) that the health parameters (immunity, obesity, depression, etc..) As well.
Of course the United States is not France. Studies on the TV and use the internet however show that large "digital" trends are similar in all developed countries. It is therefore surprising that the usual relationship between TV and video games is completely reversed among French youth than young American, English or German. Obviously, these are only averages. They always hide the existence of large interindividual variability. Some teens / kids who spend more face time video games watching TV you will always find in the population (and others who do not watch the TV without ever playing a video game). Typically however, 8-18 years spend more time watching television than deal with video games. MD (06/2011)
I'm calling bullshit on the bolded part until you post the actual study that says a passive activity like watching tv has the same effect overall as a participative activity like video games.
You can call bs all you want, it won't change anything about it. It's not about content or being passive vs participative, but about screens interfering with the kids cognitive growth and development and replacing other activities. Screens all bears similar consequences such as performing worse at school, attention deficit, increased risk of obesity, sleep disturbance, language acquisition, etc.
My copy of the book is an ocean apart so I can't provide the actual references, All I can provide is the following quote from the author, so I encourage you to make your own research of those studies about the effects of video games on children.
Q: L'effet des jeux vidéos ne vous semble-t-il pas plus important que celui de la télé ? (sur les contre-performances scolaires donc sur l'attention, la cognition etc...)
A: Il m'a semblé difficile de traiter dans un même texte de la télé et des jeux vidéo. En effet, ces derniers ont été largement étudiés depuis plus de 10 ans et la recension de cette littérature demanderait à elle seule un ouvrage. Cela étant dit, les données scientifiques disponibles montrent clairement que les jeux vidéo ont des effets aussi négatifs que la télé (voir même plus négatifs) dans nombre de domaines dont l'attention, la réussite scolaire, l'obésité, l'agressivité, le sommeil, etc. Il est donc effectivement tout à fait nécessaire, j'en conviens, de prêter attention aussi aux jeux vidéos.
Pourtant, on ne peut pas dire que les enfants/ados passent plus de temps devant les jeux vidéo (ou internet) que devant la télé. S'il n'existe pas en France, à ma connaissance, de données fiables, plusieurs études de grande ampleur ont été publiées aux Etats-Unis. Dans ce pays, les 8-18 ans passent en moyenne chaque jour 1h15 à jouer aux jeux vidéo et 2h40 à regarder la télé. Si l'on substitue à la notion de télé celle de contenu audiovisuel regardé (sur Tv, ordinateur, téléphone portable ou autres) ce dernier chiffre monte à 4h30. Ce qui est intéressant ici c'est que se sont les individus qui regardent le plus la télé qui jouent aussi le plus aux jeux vidéo. En d'autres termes, ces différentes pratiques ne se compensent pas ; elles se cumulent (et parfois s'entrechoquent — multitasking —). Le temps d'écran est alors pris sur d'autres domaines dont les activités sportives, artistiques ou sociales, les devoirs, la lecture et le sommeil. Ce dernier champ est d'ailleurs particulièrement touché. Enfants et adolescents présentent une dette de sommeil croissante et alarmante dans nos pays dits développés, ce qui affecte aussi bien les fonctions cognitives (attention, apprentissage, mémorisation) que les paramètres sanitaires (immunité, obésité, dépression, etc.).
Bien sûr les Etats-Unis ne sont pas la France. Les études sur la télé et l'usage d'internet montrent toutefois que les grandes tendances "numériques" sont similaires dans tous les pays développés. Il serait dès lors surprenant que le rapport d'usage entre télé et jeux vidéo soit totalement inversé chez les jeunes français par rapport aux jeunes américains, anglais ou allemands. Evidemment, ce ne sont là que des moyennes. Celles-ci masquent forcément l'existence de larges variabilités interindividuelles. On trouvera toujours dans la population certains ados/enfants qui passent plus de temps face aux jeux vidéo que devant la télé (et d'autres qui ne regardent que la télé sans jamais jouer à un jeu vidéo). Typiquement toutefois, les 8-18 ans passent plus de temps devant la télé que face aux jeux vidéos. MD (06/2011)
When you get right down to it, we are, all of us, Gabe & Tycho included, couch-doctors when it comes to this. We're basing our ideas on what's best for our kids on our own preconceived notions, what happened to us when we were kids ("AND WE TURNED OUT JUST FINE!"), and whatever latest paper, video, blog we just absorbed that seemed to resonate best with us.
Limit your kids screentime or don't. Maybe it'll help them in some way, or maybe it won't. We're all just kind of fumbling along here the best we can. At the end of the day, chances are pretty good, that all our kids will TURN OUT JUST FINE. So lets just stop the judgement on both sides.
One of my grand parents smoked cigarettes all his life and died of old age at 93, but that doesn't mean cigarettes do not cause cancer or that other people will be fine smoking cigarettes. The "turn out just fine" argument is biased and is debunked in the book, turning out just fine means without exposure to screen you would have fared much better. So a potential genius would turn just fine instead when exposed to screens daily.
Also they're is no maybe here, decades of science agrees on the fact that children not exposed to screen time do much better than those with limited screen time who do better than those with no screen time limit. It also show that children don't go to screen by themselves, it's grown ups who direct them to screens.
For younger child (under 6) exposure to screen consequences are irreversible whereas for older children studies show that as soon as exposure to screens is reduced or stopped, children's situation improves dramatically.
"They" will tell you to limit your child's screentime as much as possible until they are 2 years old. Who is they, I dunno, doctors I suppose, but it resonates with me and so I'm planning on doing it with my 10-month old. Does that mean I'm never putting on Sesame Street or Mickey Mouse Club or letting her play with my phone between now & her second birthday? Ha. I can tell you that's already out the window. But I'm still very cognisant of what & how much she's watching.
Actually the recommendation is an absolute ban on screens before 5 years old, and "they" is scientists and researchers from the past decades.
Research shows that parents are concerned about what and how much their kids are exposed to screens but they actually sucks at enforcing it and once the kid has his own screen or the kid is considered old enough (but usually is not) it's all downhill from there.
But I am limiting it because of the amount of brain growth that happens in that time-period I worry about the synapse links that are being generated. After two, I'll be less restrictive and less and less as time goes on. As was mentioned earlier, in this day & age, eliminating screentime is nigh-impossible. So don't. Your kid will be fine.
Eliminating screen time for kid is fully possible, not that hard and significantly improves quality of life for the whole family. I don't see what is so different than a few decades ago, apart from you thinking it is impossible there's nothing preventing you from doing it.
And yes, as screen-time of any sort matters (to an extent), the content matters probably moreso. So what they're interacting with in terms of TV or video games is naturally important. Things that can hold their attention without stifling their creativity is huge or resorting to distracting tactics is a big deal. When kids have TV/video games as their primary means of expressing/digesting creative content then it limits their own creative abilities when presented with something that has no specific context.
Again, science shows the content doesn't matter, whatever the content screen interferes with the kid ability to be attentive, to acquire language, to develop their imagination, etc. This for a variety a reason but mostly because screen time take the place of something else such as interacting with parents or being bored which is the starting point for developing one's imagination. Science says that though there are "good" content there is no good use of screens.
For me, I think that making sure they get a "healthy" balance of media consumption (TV/video games) & real-world interaction is key. What is healthy is probably different for kid to kid, and family to family. But I don't think media consumption should have the larger percentage. I'd much rather play Apples to Apples with my daughter or Legos or build a fort out of cushions be the larger percentage.
According to science, the healthy balance of screens vs parent interaction is no screen at all for kids under 6 (not even indirect exposure as in screen on in the same room the kid is), and until 18 it ought to be less than 3h a week with strict parental control over content (no ads, no product placement, no alcohol, no tobacco, no violence, no sexuality,etc.) and usage (no eating in front of a screen, no screen before sleep, no screen before school, no screen in the kid's room).
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Eh. Give 'em some legos or take 'em to the library to pick out a book or two. Failing that, it's summer, and I'm sure your kid would be happy to have one of his friends over.
There are plenty of other things kids can do that don't involve their eyes glazing over in front of a LCD screen.
You realize books have screens now, right?
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Before I dissect this too much, do you have children bgmpa? Because you haven't referenced your children once and there is a LOT of moral superiority being thrown around in your posts.
When you get right down to it, we are, all of us, Gabe & Tycho included, couch-doctors when it comes to this. We're basing our ideas on what's best for our kids on our own preconceived notions, what happened to us when we were kids ("AND WE TURNED OUT JUST FINE!"), and whatever latest paper, video, blog we just absorbed that seemed to resonate best with us.
Limit your kids screentime or don't. Maybe it'll help them in some way, or maybe it won't. We're all just kind of fumbling along here the best we can. At the end of the day, chances are pretty good, that all our kids will TURN OUT JUST FINE. So lets just stop the judgement on both sides.
One of my grand parents smoked cigarettes all his life and died of old age at 93, but that doesn't mean cigarettes do not cause cancer or that other people will be fine smoking cigarettes. The "turn out just fine" argument is biased and is debunked in the book, turning out just fine means without exposure to screen you would have fared much better. So a potential genius would turn just fine instead when exposed to screens daily.
Also they're is no maybe here, decades of science agrees on the fact that children not exposed to screen time do much better than those with limited screen time who do better than those with no screen time limit. It also show that children don't go to screen by themselves, it's grown ups who direct them to screens.
For younger child (under 6) exposure to screen consequences are irreversible whereas for older children studies show that as soon as exposure to screens is reduced or stopped, children's situation improves dramatically.
"They" will tell you to limit your child's screentime as much as possible until they are 2 years old. Who is they, I dunno, doctors I suppose, but it resonates with me and so I'm planning on doing it with my 10-month old. Does that mean I'm never putting on Sesame Street or Mickey Mouse Club or letting her play with my phone between now & her second birthday? Ha. I can tell you that's already out the window. But I'm still very cognisant of what & how much she's watching.
Actually the recommendation is an absolute ban on screens before 5 years old, and "they" is scientists and researchers from the past decades.
Research shows that parents are concerned about what and how much their kids are exposed to screens but they actually sucks at enforcing it and once the kid has his own screen or the kid is considered old enough (but usually is not) it's all downhill from there.
But I am limiting it because of the amount of brain growth that happens in that time-period I worry about the synapse links that are being generated. After two, I'll be less restrictive and less and less as time goes on. As was mentioned earlier, in this day & age, eliminating screentime is nigh-impossible. So don't. Your kid will be fine.
Eliminating screen time for kid is fully possible, not that hard and significantly improves quality of life for the whole family. I don't see what is so different than a few decades ago, apart from you thinking it is impossible there's nothing preventing you from doing it.
And yes, as screen-time of any sort matters (to an extent), the content matters probably moreso. So what they're interacting with in terms of TV or video games is naturally important. Things that can hold their attention without stifling their creativity is huge or resorting to distracting tactics is a big deal. When kids have TV/video games as their primary means of expressing/digesting creative content then it limits their own creative abilities when presented with something that has no specific context.
Again, science shows the content doesn't matter, whatever the content screen interferes with the kid ability to be attentive, to acquire language, to develop their imagination, etc. This for a variety a reason but mostly because screen time take the place of something else such as interacting with parents or being bored which is the starting point for developing one's imagination. Science says that though there are "good" content there is no good use of screens.
For me, I think that making sure they get a "healthy" balance of media consumption (TV/video games) & real-world interaction is key. What is healthy is probably different for kid to kid, and family to family. But I don't think media consumption should have the larger percentage. I'd much rather play Apples to Apples with my daughter or Legos or build a fort out of cushions be the larger percentage.
According to science, the healthy balance of screens vs parent interaction is no screen at all for kids under 6 (not even indirect exposure as in screen on in the same room the kid is), and until 18 it ought to be less than 3h a week with strict parental control over content (no ads, no product placement, no alcohol, no tobacco, no violence, no sexuality,etc.) and usage (no eating in front of a screen, no screen before sleep, no screen before school, no screen in the kid's room).
I'm calling bullshit on the bolded part until you post the actual study that says a passive activity like watching tv has the same effect overall as a participative activity like video games.
You can call bs all you want, it won't change anything about it. It's not about content or being passive vs participative, but about screens interfering with the kids cognitive growth and development and replacing other activities. Screens all bears similar consequences such as performing worse at school, attention deficit, increased risk of obesity, sleep disturbance, language acquisition, etc.
My copy of the book is an ocean apart so I can't provide the actual references, All I can provide is the following quote from the author, so I encourage you to make your own research of those studies about the effects of video games on children.
Book =/= peer reviewed scientific article.
Which studies? In that quote he 'referenced' some ethereal studies as vaguely as you did.
+2
Options
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I feel like now is a good time to remind people that correlation != causation.
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
The simple presence of a turned on screen in the same room as a young kid has profound impact on the kid cognitive development and growth (the younger the kid the more profound the impact).
I can imagine withholding screens can help children do better in most traditional schools, where they're almost guaranteed to be bored and generally still have to do everything with paper and pen.
I have far more difficulties imagining withholding screens helping children do better in actual society.
Ever worked in an office with an older person who almost never used screens (computers) outside the workplace?
Yeah.....
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
Hi. My name is Nathaniel (however I go by Nate to the extent I considered legally removing the extraneous syllables from my name).
Aside from that confession...I have a 9 year old son and we don't put a strict limit on screen time for this exact reason. Too much time staring at youtube? We'll tell him to take a break. Playing Castle Crashers with me? No problem. Watching the same episode of Clarence for the 10th time? Take a break. Playing Rock Band with the family? Continue rocking young squire.
I hate people that place arbitrary time limits without reason...and my son's school LOVES to bring in speakers to try to convince the kids that screen time absolutely has to have these hard set limits. It feels a lot like when my 3rd grade teacher told my mom I was going to stab or be stabbed due to playing D&D...misunderstandings and media boogeymen have lead to a very black and white message on an issue with a lot of grey area.
"Experts" used to fearmonger about D&D. Look how that turned out.
At best, there might be a point about mindlessly vegging out instead of engaging in creative or active pastimes, and about the relationship between infants being plopped down in front of the flashing images on TV and later attention spans.
You know what I find most telling, though? Most of the stuff I've read supporting keeping kids away from screens entirely - it rarely touches on actually getting involved in whatever other activities you want the kids to be up to instead. Rather than saying "ignoring your kids by turning on the TV and leaving them with it for four hours is bad, go play with them at the park/with their Legos/read to them" most of that advice is little more than "ELECTRONICS BAD. DO ON FIXED SCHEDULE LIKE SCHOOL."
The implication is that good parenting is achieved just by arbitrarily limiting all screen/video gaming time, with barely a thought to why or what will take its place, let alone with any regard to what kind of screen time is happening. So instead of parents actively engaging their children in slow-paced, creative, shared activities, they just kick their kids out of the house for an hour while they themselves watch TV. I've seen relatives do exactly this. In the end, it's me who ends up pairing up with them in said activities. I'm the one who's gone outside with the kids to play tag, or brought out the Legos with them, or pulled out the nerf guns. Granted I don't have to do this sort of thing with their kids every day, I do have my days to myself, but it seems to me that that is the price you pay for having children.
Kicking kids off of all electronic media or only certain kinds of it is just as much a shortcut to parenting as plopping them in front of the very same media, as a distraction.
And they might be young, but kids will definitely notice when you're being hypocritical or arbitrary about it. How often does "because I said so" actually work as a convincing argument?
Not to mention that the electronic media in question has a varying level of interaction. Dora the Explorer has the title character routinely ask questions of the kids in front of the TV, with pauses for them to reply. Minecraft hardly needs explanation, it's basically Lego on steroids and with optional zombies. Both are meant to get their consumers thinking.
Finally, I should point out the one thing about "we limit our kids' X time" that really irks me. It's because you're saying that, and not "I make sure that the kids and I go for walks/bike rides every day".
Putting the importance on what they're not doing as opposed to what they are.
I fail to see how something as nebulous as "screen time" can harm kids just by being in the room (?) when screens are now replacing, even in schools, things like textbooks and activity journals.
I fail to see how something as nebulous as "screen time" can harm kids just by being in the room (?) when screens are now replacing, even in schools, things like textbooks and activity journals.
It's probably like the old statistic about how families who own more books have better performing kids. Which is to say "correlative".
I fail to see how something as nebulous as "screen time" can harm kids just by being in the room (?) when screens are now replacing, even in schools, things like textbooks and activity journals.
All screens spray kids with radioactive dumbing-waves through the light they emit.
I fail to see how something as nebulous as "screen time" can harm kids just by being in the room (?) when screens are now replacing, even in schools, things like textbooks and activity journals.
All screens spray kids with radioactive dumbing-waves through the light they emit.
That are also said to cause cancer(take your pick) because of course it does.
0
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
Eh. Give 'em some legos or take 'em to the library to pick out a book or two. Failing that, it's summer, and I'm sure your kid would be happy to have one of his friends over.
There are plenty of other things kids can do that don't involve their eyes glazing over in front of a LCD screen.
Doesn't Nathaniel sound like the perfect name for a snooty kid with snooty parents?
It's because everyone who isn't a prat would call him Nathan instead.
If you're not an angel, demon or a mermaid your name, as used in conversations, should not end with "-iel"
The old testament is absolutely full of mundane people with names ending in "el'". Removing the "el" changes the meaning of the names, mostly for the worse.
Daniel - "God is my Judge"
Danny - "Judge me!"
Nathaniel - "Given by God"
Nathan - "He Gave"
Ariel - "Lion of God" though if you want to be heretical it can also be read as "Lion God".
Ari - "Lion"
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
I would even argue that e-reading is vastly superior for kids than paper books. Just for dictionary lookup alone. It is just so superior for absorbing vocabulary.
Doesn't Nathaniel sound like the perfect name for a snooty kid with snooty parents?
It's because everyone who isn't a prat would call him Nathan instead.
If you're not an angel, demon or a mermaid your name, as used in conversations, should not end with "-iel"
The old testament is absolutely full of mundane people with names ending in "el'". Removing the "el" changes the meaning of the names, mostly for the worse.
Daniel - "God is my Judge"
Danny - "Judge me!"
Nathaniel - "Given by God"
Nathan - "He Gave"
Ariel - "Lion of God" though if you want to be heretical it can also be read as "Lion God".
Ari - "Lion"
And Krypton. El names are practically the norm there.
So is there something inherently involved in the rays that LCD lights put out that make us stupider as opposed to anything else a kid might look at? It's not being made clear what the difference between reading a book on a Kindle and reading a paper-book is. Does the Mona Lisa become less beautiful or relevant if you see it on a screen and not in person when you're 4 years old?
I still remember the day my dad bought Encarta. I spent countless hours gaping at the monitor, learning shit, for nearly a year. He used to break out the "I have a dream" video every time anybody came over. And I'm very grateful for that experience.
yeah, the whole point of the Kindle, and every other e-reader, is that there is little to no difference between it and real paper. those devices were invented to provide a static image, rather than the constantly flickering/refreshing screens of PC/laptop monitors.
the fact that they themselves seem to be being replaced with tablets holds a certain irony i think.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I would even argue that e-reading is vastly superior for kids than paper books. Just for dictionary lookup alone. It is just so superior for absorbing vocabulary.
A part of every kid's development should be reading words without knowing them and then using them wrongly in a conversation and getting shamed.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Kindle's don't use LCD screens. They're not even backlit.
The parents being lampooned in the comic just talk about limiting screen time, they don't talk about how some screens aren't part of the prohibition because they aren't LCD screens.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Posts
And I am totally limiting my daughter's "screen time." We may allow certain video games (she's not even 1, so we haven't started anything yet) when she is older, but t.v. will probably be off the table for a while. We don't even own a television set atm, so it's not much of an issue.
It's not arbitrary. There is evidence that limiting screen time can be beneficial. But to say the science is 100% is overstating it. No one is "bad" if they approach it differently. Just don't park your kid in front of the boob tube 24/7.
Limit your kids screentime or don't. Maybe it'll help them in some way, or maybe it won't. We're all just kind of fumbling along here the best we can. At the end of the day, chances are pretty good, that all our kids will TURN OUT JUST FINE. So lets just stop the judgement on both sides.
"They" will tell you to limit your child's screentime as much as possible until they are 2 years old. Who is they, I dunno, doctors I suppose, but it resonates with me and so I'm planning on doing it with my 10-month old. Does that mean I'm never putting on Sesame Street or Mickey Mouse Club or letting her play with my phone between now & her second birthday? Ha. I can tell you that's already out the window. But I'm still very cognisant of what & how much she's watching.
But I am limiting it because of the amount of brain growth that happens in that time-period I worry about the synapse links that are being generated. After two, I'll be less restrictive and less and less as time goes on. As was mentioned earlier, in this day & age, eliminating screentime is nigh-impossible. So don't. Your kid will be fine.
And yes, as screen-time of any sort matters (to an extent), the content matters probably moreso. So what they're interacting with in terms of TV or video games is naturally important. Things that can hold their attention without stifling their creativity is huge or resorting to distracting tactics is a big deal. When kids have TV/video games as their primary means of expressing/digesting creative content then it limits their own creative abilities when presented with something that has no specific context.
For me, I think that making sure they get a "healthy" balance of media consumption (TV/video games) & real-world interaction is key. What is healthy is probably different for kid to kid, and family to family. But I don't think media consumption should have the larger percentage. I'd much rather play Apples to Apples with my daughter or Legos or build a fort out of cushions be the larger percentage.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to point at Gabe and his decision to let his kid play Minecraft all day long and call him a bad parent. I don't think that. I don't know that. I'm just doing the best I can with my kid. That's enough for me.
Except science says there's no room for debate anymore, kids playing violent videogames will increase violent behavior and aggressiveness. See
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/5/1222.full and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704015/
No it does not. The simple presence of a turned on screen in the same room as a young kid has profound impact on the kid cognitive development and growth (the younger the kid the more profound the impact). Then again Mr Rogers vs PowerPuff Girls may show a difference in resulting violent behavior, but both will have a similar impact on the kid development and growth. You have to understand how a child develops to understand how screens are interfering with kid's growth.
You can call bs all you want, it won't change anything about it. It's not about content or being passive vs participative, but about screens interfering with the kids cognitive growth and development and replacing other activities. Screens all bears similar consequences such as performing worse at school, attention deficit, increased risk of obesity, sleep disturbance, language acquisition, etc.
My copy of the book is an ocean apart so I can't provide the actual references, All I can provide is the following quote from the author, so I encourage you to make your own research of those studies about the effects of video games on children.
Q: Does not the effect of video games seem more important than TV? (School performances against so on attention, cognition, etc.)
A: It seemed difficult to treat in a single text the TV and video games. Indeed, they have been widely studied for over 10 years and review of the literature would require a book in itself. That said, the available scientific data clearly show that video games also have negative effects that TV (or even more negative) in many areas, including attention, academic achievement, obesity, aggression, sleep, etc.. It is actually quite necessary, I agree, to pay attention also to video games.
Yet we can not say that children / teens spend more time playing video games (or internet) than watching TV. If it does not exist in France, to my knowledge, reliable data, several large studies have been published in the United States. In this country, 8-18 years spend an average of 1:15 each day playing video games and watching TV 2:40. If we substitute the notion of audiovisual content that TV watching (on TV, computer, mobile phone or other) it rises to 4.30. What is interesting here is that these are the people who watch more TV also play most video games. In other words, these practices do not compensate; they accumulate (and sometimes collide - multitasking -). Screen time is then taken from other areas, including sports, arts and social activities, homework, reading and sleeping. This last field is also particularly affected. Children and adolescents have a sleep debt increasing and alarming in our so-called developed countries, affecting cognitive function (attention learning, memory) that the health parameters (immunity, obesity, depression, etc..) As well.
Of course the United States is not France. Studies on the TV and use the internet however show that large "digital" trends are similar in all developed countries. It is therefore surprising that the usual relationship between TV and video games is completely reversed among French youth than young American, English or German. Obviously, these are only averages. They always hide the existence of large interindividual variability. Some teens / kids who spend more face time video games watching TV you will always find in the population (and others who do not watch the TV without ever playing a video game). Typically however, 8-18 years spend more time watching television than deal with video games. MD (06/2011)
One of my grand parents smoked cigarettes all his life and died of old age at 93, but that doesn't mean cigarettes do not cause cancer or that other people will be fine smoking cigarettes. The "turn out just fine" argument is biased and is debunked in the book, turning out just fine means without exposure to screen you would have fared much better. So a potential genius would turn just fine instead when exposed to screens daily.
Also they're is no maybe here, decades of science agrees on the fact that children not exposed to screen time do much better than those with limited screen time who do better than those with no screen time limit. It also show that children don't go to screen by themselves, it's grown ups who direct them to screens.
For younger child (under 6) exposure to screen consequences are irreversible whereas for older children studies show that as soon as exposure to screens is reduced or stopped, children's situation improves dramatically.
Actually the recommendation is an absolute ban on screens before 5 years old, and "they" is scientists and researchers from the past decades.
Research shows that parents are concerned about what and how much their kids are exposed to screens but they actually sucks at enforcing it and once the kid has his own screen or the kid is considered old enough (but usually is not) it's all downhill from there.
Eliminating screen time for kid is fully possible, not that hard and significantly improves quality of life for the whole family. I don't see what is so different than a few decades ago, apart from you thinking it is impossible there's nothing preventing you from doing it.
Again, science shows the content doesn't matter, whatever the content screen interferes with the kid ability to be attentive, to acquire language, to develop their imagination, etc. This for a variety a reason but mostly because screen time take the place of something else such as interacting with parents or being bored which is the starting point for developing one's imagination. Science says that though there are "good" content there is no good use of screens.
According to science, the healthy balance of screens vs parent interaction is no screen at all for kids under 6 (not even indirect exposure as in screen on in the same room the kid is), and until 18 it ought to be less than 3h a week with strict parental control over content (no ads, no product placement, no alcohol, no tobacco, no violence, no sexuality,etc.) and usage (no eating in front of a screen, no screen before sleep, no screen before school, no screen in the kid's room).
You realize books have screens now, right?
After 70 years or so, there's not much "new" about TV.
Book =/= peer reviewed scientific article.
Which studies? In that quote he 'referenced' some ethereal studies as vaguely as you did.
I always thought it did.
Then I was told it didn't.
I don't think that any more.
What's the impact, even?
No, its the perfect name for someone who fucks or will fuck inanimate objects like puppets or cars.
You have an oddly specific Big Book of Baby Names
I have far more difficulties imagining withholding screens helping children do better in actual society.
Ever worked in an office with an older person who almost never used screens (computers) outside the workplace?
Yeah.....
It's from this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_(short_story)
A role played by Christoph Waltz no less in one of his first (german) movies in 1983.
Which is also why this
http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/my_strange_addiction_nathaniel_is_in_love_with_and_has_sex_with_his_car-2012-02
Was even more hilarious for me than for most
Aside from that confession...I have a 9 year old son and we don't put a strict limit on screen time for this exact reason. Too much time staring at youtube? We'll tell him to take a break. Playing Castle Crashers with me? No problem. Watching the same episode of Clarence for the 10th time? Take a break. Playing Rock Band with the family? Continue rocking young squire.
I hate people that place arbitrary time limits without reason...and my son's school LOVES to bring in speakers to try to convince the kids that screen time absolutely has to have these hard set limits. It feels a lot like when my 3rd grade teacher told my mom I was going to stab or be stabbed due to playing D&D...misunderstandings and media boogeymen have lead to a very black and white message on an issue with a lot of grey area.
At best, there might be a point about mindlessly vegging out instead of engaging in creative or active pastimes, and about the relationship between infants being plopped down in front of the flashing images on TV and later attention spans.
You know what I find most telling, though? Most of the stuff I've read supporting keeping kids away from screens entirely - it rarely touches on actually getting involved in whatever other activities you want the kids to be up to instead. Rather than saying "ignoring your kids by turning on the TV and leaving them with it for four hours is bad, go play with them at the park/with their Legos/read to them" most of that advice is little more than "ELECTRONICS BAD. DO ON FIXED SCHEDULE LIKE SCHOOL."
The implication is that good parenting is achieved just by arbitrarily limiting all screen/video gaming time, with barely a thought to why or what will take its place, let alone with any regard to what kind of screen time is happening. So instead of parents actively engaging their children in slow-paced, creative, shared activities, they just kick their kids out of the house for an hour while they themselves watch TV. I've seen relatives do exactly this. In the end, it's me who ends up pairing up with them in said activities. I'm the one who's gone outside with the kids to play tag, or brought out the Legos with them, or pulled out the nerf guns. Granted I don't have to do this sort of thing with their kids every day, I do have my days to myself, but it seems to me that that is the price you pay for having children.
Kicking kids off of all electronic media or only certain kinds of it is just as much a shortcut to parenting as plopping them in front of the very same media, as a distraction.
And they might be young, but kids will definitely notice when you're being hypocritical or arbitrary about it. How often does "because I said so" actually work as a convincing argument?
Not to mention that the electronic media in question has a varying level of interaction. Dora the Explorer has the title character routinely ask questions of the kids in front of the TV, with pauses for them to reply. Minecraft hardly needs explanation, it's basically Lego on steroids and with optional zombies. Both are meant to get their consumers thinking.
Finally, I should point out the one thing about "we limit our kids' X time" that really irks me. It's because you're saying that, and not "I make sure that the kids and I go for walks/bike rides every day".
Putting the importance on what they're not doing as opposed to what they are.
All screens spray kids with radioactive dumbing-waves through the light they emit.
That are also said to cause cancer(take your pick) because of course it does.
?
Daniel - "God is my Judge"
Danny - "Judge me!"
Nathaniel - "Given by God"
Nathan - "He Gave"
Ariel - "Lion of God" though if you want to be heretical it can also be read as "Lion God".
Ari - "Lion"
And Krypton. El names are practically the norm there.
I still remember the day my dad bought Encarta. I spent countless hours gaping at the monitor, learning shit, for nearly a year. He used to break out the "I have a dream" video every time anybody came over. And I'm very grateful for that experience.
Steam: adamjnet
the fact that they themselves seem to be being replaced with tablets holds a certain irony i think.
A part of every kid's development should be reading words without knowing them and then using them wrongly in a conversation and getting shamed.
The parents being lampooned in the comic just talk about limiting screen time, they don't talk about how some screens aren't part of the prohibition because they aren't LCD screens.