Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doctors Recommend Against TV For Kids Under 2

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the and-don't-let-them-drive dept.

Medicine 210

An anonymous reader writes "The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a recommendation to parents that kids under the age of two should be limited in their time watching television and using computers. They say there's 'no such thing' as educational programming for kids that young, and that they benefit much more from real human interaction (PDF). Psychologist Georgene Troseth said, 'We know that some learning can take place from media, but it's a lot lower, and it takes a lot longer.' The article continues: 'Unlike school-age children, infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on" no matter how well done a video is, Dr. Troseth said. The new report strongly warns parents against putting a TV in a very young child's room and advises them to be mindful of how much their own use of media is distracting from playtime. In some surveys between 40 and 60 percent of households report having a TV on for much of the day — which distracts both children and adults, research suggests.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37757782)

Of course, he's a kitten, and he probably just sees the motions anyway, but did you really think I'd had a baby? Here, a slashdot poster?

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (3, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#37757958)

I recommend against TV for children under 99.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758072)

I recommend against TV for children under 99.

You have the right idea but you're not thinking big enough.

If you are a parent and you need a bunch of doctors to tell you that TV is not a good babysitter, that maybe "TV as babysitter" and designer diseases like "ADD" aren't really a coincidence, that if you weren't such a piss-poor parent you'd actually spend quality time with your young children and interact with them and stimulate their developing minds during their critical formative years ... if you need somebody to explain this to you and impress you with how many Ph.Ds they have on their wall, you're a fucking idiot.

Such "parents" (not worthy of the name parent, should be called breeders sort of like cattle) should have their children taken away and should then be forcibly surgically sterilized. I'm tired of dealing with the now-adult offspring of negligent parents who saw their children as a line item on their daily schedules. They're idiots, they can't focus on anything, they can't even fucking look where they're walking, and they're so fucking helpless and lazy, constantly begging for some kind of handholding for things they should be more than capable of handling on their own. Don't even get me started on the trend of telling kids they're special and genius when they haven't actually achieved anything, and the loud-mouthed attention-starved narcissists they grow up to be.

Oh yeah, dumbass parents like this also wonder why their kids don't respect them. Hahaha. It will never occur to them to try actually being respectable. Nope, the problem must be the child, yeah, sure, naturally they had nothing to do with that...

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (3, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | about 3 years ago | (#37758356)

ADD is the logical consequence of doing everything ever faster. It is not caused by TV as such, but rather by the way the world has changed.

We used to have the middle ages, where everything significant done was thought over probaby 50 years at the very least.
Then we went from "water + green sparkly stone heats up" to nuclear power plants (with a detour to the bomb) in about 15 years.
Then things accelerated and technology advanced, so cost decreased to the point where 10 year planning was enough to travel to the moon.
We went from 1 baud to ~150 Tb/sec with roughly the same amount of minds behind it, in about 40 years, rising exponentially year-over-year.
Now things are accelerated to the point that we plan for a few hours, a few weeks, maybe a few months for the really, really big projects.

And "strangely" this results in a short attention span ... how is this a surprise ? How exactly do you think our brains would adapt ? It is physically impossible (in non-geological timespans) to get any smarter, so what was the brain to do ? The acceleration above happened in 500 years. The last 4 in less than 100 years. The last 2 in 30 years. ADD is only the beginning, it'll expand to the point that large amounts of people do not have sufficient attention span to get anything done at all, to the point where it can rightly be called a disease.

ADD is simply a result of how we've "chosen" to run the world (perhaps more accurately : how the dollar has chosen to run the world). It will get much worse than it is today. The shortening of attention spans and the lack of depth of thought is running along an exponential curve.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 3 years ago | (#37758452)

ADD is the logical consequence of doing everything ever faster. It is not caused by TV as such, but rather by the way the world has changed.

We used to have the middle ages, where everything significant done was thought over probaby 50 years at the very least. Then we went from "water + green sparkly stone heats up" to nuclear power plants (with a detour to the bomb) in about 15 years. Then things accelerated and technology advanced, so cost decreased to the point where 10 year planning was enough to travel to the moon. We went from 1 baud to ~150 Tb/sec with roughly the same amount of minds behind it, in about 40 years, rising exponentially year-over-year. Now things are accelerated to the point that we plan for a few hours, a few weeks, maybe a few months for the really, really big projects.

And "strangely" this results in a short attention span ... how is this a surprise ? How exactly do you think our brains would adapt ? It is physically impossible (in non-geological timespans) to get any smarter, so what was the brain to do ? The acceleration above happened in 500 years. The last 4 in less than 100 years. The last 2 in 30 years. ADD is only the beginning, it'll expand to the point that large amounts of people do not have sufficient attention span to get anything done at all, to the point where it can rightly be called a disease.

ADD is simply a result of how we've "chosen" to run the world (perhaps more accurately : how the dollar has chosen to run the world). It will get much worse than it is today. The shortening of attention spans and the lack of depth of thought is running along an exponential curve.

How then do you explain those who can deal with the pace of modern life, including those who love and work frequently with technology and information, yet retain the ability to concentrate and focus and pay attention at will?

I have an entirely different theory. It's not a matter of something new that has recently appeared. It's a matter of something old that is no longer valued as it once was. The heightened pace of modern life merely increases the contrast, makes the nature of the problem more evident and observable. Without that, you'd have to look for it much harder before you would see it.

It's simply a matter of discipline mixed with expectation and most people grossly sell themselves short on both counts. The lack of depth is absolutely caused by the decline of personal introspection and self-evaluation, things which naturally lead to an internal embracing of the good and rewarding kind of discipline. This isn't the kind of discipline externally imposed by some authority. It is a desire to appreciate and to invest in things that are valuable and significant.

If you buy a car, you take good care of it and learn a little bit about how it works so you know how to do that. If you buy a computer, you pay attention to experienced users, you learn from your mistakes, and you do a little reading here and there so you can get the most out of it. All of that has now been shoved into the exclusive domain of experts. All of that is "too hard", which is code for "requires a small investment of effort that repeatedly pays off forever afterwards".

All of that is not passive enough, not comfortable enough for those who want to be served more than they want to help themselves. That kind of creative, relaxing "me time" would also mean you don't judge your social standing by how hectic and burn-out your schedule is, you make time for things you value more than you say "I just don't have the time". In short, that would make you a nobody, because if you were really somebody, you'd be drowning in appointments instead of bothering with things like working on your character and learning new things.

The only real change has been to what you might call a value system. The pace at which a given value system is applied is completely irrelevant.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (0)

scum-e-bag (211846) | about 3 years ago | (#37758530)

How then do you explain those who can deal with the pace of modern life, including those who love and work frequently with technology and information, yet retain the ability to concentrate and focus and pay attention at will?

Sufficient genetic deviation in the population should allow such people to exist. If these people are successful breeders relative to the ADD folks, then, Darwins law of evolution shall explain the rest for you.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (5, Informative)

causality (777677) | about 3 years ago | (#37758572)

How then do you explain those who can deal with the pace of modern life, including those who love and work frequently with technology and information, yet retain the ability to concentrate and focus and pay attention at will?

Sufficient genetic deviation in the population should allow such people to exist. If these people are successful breeders relative to the ADD folks, then, Darwins law of evolution shall explain the rest for you.

Darwinism doesn't apply when the penalty for stupidity (i.e. lack of fitness) is less than death or at least, sterilization.

Darwinism in that classic sense hasn't applied to human beings for a very long time because of technologically improved production capabilities, social safety nets, and modern medicine. Please don't offer explanations based on things you clearly don't understand.

It's particularly shallow to offer a genetic explanation in a one-size-fits-all manner in response to my post about nurture and voluntary decision-making.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1)

scum-e-bag (211846) | about 3 years ago | (#37758614)

Darwinism doesn't apply when the penalty for stupidity (i.e. lack of fitness) is less than death or at least, sterilization.

When a couple only produce one child and this child only has one child in coupling with another only child, the relative amount of their DNA in the gene pool diminishes. Compared this to their neighbour, who produces three offspring every generation. It's simple enough to create a proof by induction that you have either not understood what I wrote, or, that you have no idea what you are talking about... please refrain from posting rubbish.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (2)

causality (777677) | about 3 years ago | (#37758722)

Darwinism doesn't apply when the penalty for stupidity (i.e. lack of fitness) is less than death or at least, sterilization.

When a couple only produce one child and this child only has one child in coupling with another only child, the relative amount of their DNA in the gene pool diminishes. Compared this to their neighbour, who produces three offspring every generation. It's simple enough to create a proof by induction that you have either not understood what I wrote, or, that you have no idea what you are talking about... please refrain from posting rubbish.

To suggest that this is due to "nature running its course", based on competition, with the end of making the objectively fittest thrive as implied by Darwinism and any notion of natural selection, and not at all influenced or if you will, perverted, by the flaws in those artificial constructs we call societies, is simply absurd.

Thus the notion of who breeds more eventually becomes who makes poorer decisions. You wind up with situations where the smart, careful, responsible, prudent people who take the time to attain an education, establish a career, form a healthy marriage, own a home, and then have only the children they can financially and emotionally afford to properly raise are disadvantaged. Instead of quality, it becomes a race for quantity. So those who recklessly have sex without birth control when they are absolutely not ready to have a baby multiply much more than those who do not.

Unless you're a big subscriber to that most puerile of justifications, known as "might makes right", you have to notice something there is not as it would naturally be, if there were a struggle for survival as Darwinism assumes. That means we are talking about something other than Darwinism. Having established that, let's recognize it and move on to something that might work. No need to play word games with what "Darwinism" means, like some lawyer, to force the square peg into a round hole because it means you get your way.

The hinge of this whole turn you've decided was best for the thread is the notion of "fitness" and what that means. You've decided to twist it to mean "whatever happens to be common" with no sign of an appreciation of how and why it became common. Then you offer this "breeding contest" type of response to my comment which was about personal decision-making and willingness to assume responsibility, something that is "nurture" and not "nature" if you insist on dividing the two.

So alright, tell me I don't understand what you did there. If you think I'm personally insulting you by asking you not to post about what you do not understand, then okay, repeat my own format to mock me, only substitute "rubbish" for "things you clearly don't understand" like a variable in a formula. You really want to prove my point for me about shallow responses to things, don't you?

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1)

Eskarel (565631) | about 3 years ago | (#37758632)

Natural selection applies in any instance where the probability of reproduction is affected. It's got jack all to do with death or sterilization except insofar as those things affect probability of reproduction. If you have a gigantic nose and that makes it less likely for you to find a mate and procreate, then your giant nose is selected against, even if it has no impact on your own personal survival, because people without gigantic noses will have more kids who also don't have gigantic noses than you and people like you will have gigantic nosed kids.

Obviously factors which cause death or sterilization during reproductive age will have a more prominent affect than other factors because dead people don't have any kids whereas ugly people are just less likely to. Please don't correc people when you are both incorrect and stupid.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | about 3 years ago | (#37758640)

Your argument may hold some merit when we're talking about huge timescales (tens of thousands of years), but not in the short term. In the short term, as you say, genetic (and other) diversity allows for a group that can cope with the problem, at least in the short term, a group that has "ADD", and a group that ceases to be functional at all.

Since the evolution in the speed of working is so much faster than the speed of adaptation there is only a tiny, almost negligible pressure for adaptation, which is only taken into account once every 30 years (because multiple kids doesn't matter as long as their parents come from the previous generation there is no adaptation on a per-kid basis).

So in the "short" term (which is everything shorter than hundreds of generations) you will simply see a shift of normal people to ADD, and ADD to full blown mental illness (which is simply a fancy word for being unable to think correctly at the level required for normal functioning. Compared to 1990, today's border of mental illness is located somewhere between fluent mobile phone usage and fluent office usage, where engineers (whether we're talking programmers or architects) have more margin, whereas in 1990, being able to move a mop on a floor was more than sufficient for normal functioning)

This border is shifting, and will quickly envelop more and more of the population. Right now ~2% of people are over the edge, more than 10% are perilously close ("borderline" behavior to use the psychological term), and, let's face it, 20% are over the line, but it doesn't matter because they're pensioners.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1)

z0idberg (888892) | about 3 years ago | (#37758460)

How does the fact that projects that used to take years now take months account for people who cannot keep their attention on anything for more than a few minutes at a time?

Is there any evidence for this or are you just hypothesizing? Sure sounds like you are pretty certain of it.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense that people can't keep their attention for more than a few minutes because they watch shitloads of TV from the day that they are born where there is a commercial break every few minutes?

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1)

sjames (1099) | about 3 years ago | (#37758482)

It's not so much a symptom of things that go faster as it is loonies deluding themselves that they can actually multi-task and expecting others to do it as well.

They end up ADD because they never learn what focus actually feels like. They're as likely to accomplish any sort of focus as a couch potato is to break a record in the long jump and for similar reasons.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (3, Interesting)

another_twilight (585366) | about 3 years ago | (#37758492)

Nonsense.

There's a fair bit of evidence to show that ADD is heritable. There's some that suggests that it has been around a lot longer than just the modern period, but that in the past there was a greater variety of work that allowed people who aren't comfortable with a 9-5 office routine to still be useful and productive.

Decrease access to certain types of work and increase the number of children who don't get to grow up with adult males who can teach and show them ways of using AD in useful ways (it's Y linked) and you are going to see more people who are 'disordered'. The 'attention deficit' part contains a large chunk of people who are just not suited to focusing on a single task for eight hours at a time and/or who aren't primarily audio/visual learners and thinkers.

Perhaps calling your argument 'nonsense' is going too far - social change has resulted in more people exhibiting 'symptoms', but it's not some kind of adaption or reaction to the rate of change.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1)

causality (777677) | about 3 years ago | (#37758548)

Nonsense. There's a fair bit of evidence to show that ADD is heritable. There's some that suggests that it has been around a lot longer than just the modern period, but that in the past there was a greater variety of work that allowed people who aren't comfortable with a 9-5 office routine to still be useful and productive. Decrease access to certain types of work and increase the number of children who don't get to grow up with adult males who can teach and show them ways of using AD in useful ways (it's Y linked) and you are going to see more people who are 'disordered'. The 'attention deficit' part contains a large chunk of people who are just not suited to focusing on a single task for eight hours at a time and/or who aren't primarily audio/visual learners and thinkers. Perhaps calling your argument 'nonsense' is going too far - social change has resulted in more people exhibiting 'symptoms', but it's not some kind of adaption or reaction to the rate of change.

Here's the nonsense part. It's one thing to not be "primarily" an audio-visual learner. It's quite another to be so completely stuck in one and only one form of learning that you are completely dysfunctional in any other. It's a choice one makes and it's really that simple.

It's also another thing to say, "hmm, I have a definite weakness in this area and my very best possible move is to never, ever work on this weakness until, with time and patience, I become at least proficient at it even if I never become the best at it. Damn, that's far too dynamic and active and I really want my mind to be rigid and passive. No, now that I'm aware of this weakness, I'll just avoid it entirely and call it my disability. Then everyone can accommodate me or they're insensitive."

That so few have the guts, the sense, and the personal responsibility to understand this is precisely why we're gradually embracing fascism. Think about it.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (2)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | about 3 years ago | (#37758676)

There's a fair bit of evidence to show that ADD is heritable

True, but it doesn't actually contradict my argument. You're falling for the fallacy of the inverted consequence :

A -> B, therefore it must be that B -> A. *Bzzzt* not true.

Every genetic effect is heritable. But because an effect is heritable does *not* mean it is genetic. Religion is almost exclusively heritable (yes even given the supposedly massive shift to atheism, which is in reality but a pathetic trickle), yet it is not genetic, to give but one obvious example.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37758688)

"There's a fair bit of evidence to show that ADD is heritable"

Yea when mommy and daddy do nothing but sit on their asses constantly flipping channels or watching spaz material for every second of their free time, it does not take a fucking genius to figure out why the kid spazzes out cause sponge bob is not having a seizure every 8 seconds.

but fuck it dope them up at age 4 that will fix them, then the parents just have to pay a minor bill and little fuckoff can watch dragon ball seizure all day long without becoming a nuisance and still fail at school.

Least that is what I got from my nieces ... heh the younger one still uses the microwave in 20 second bursts to heat up leftovers now that she is almost driving. Thanks asswipes, non parenting and handing a 2 year old a remote to cable TV really paid off.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (0)

MichaelKristopeit403 (1978294) | about 3 years ago | (#37758434)

an anonymous coward preaching down to individuals not worthy of a name?

slashdot = stagnated

No Offense to Black Folk Is Intended (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758624)

an anonymous coward preaching down to individuals not worthy of a name?

slashdot = stagnated

you = nigger

Re:No Offense to Black Folk Is Intended (1)

MichaelKristopeit404 (1978298) | about 3 years ago | (#37758716)

you're exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (2)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 3 years ago | (#37757972)

Of course, he's a kitten, and he probably just sees the motions anyway, but did you really think I'd had a baby? Here, a slashdot poster?

Apparently not a very alert /.er. Only slow cats can see something resembling an image, the rest see a moving dot of light (for those with CRTs) or just a flickering stutter for slower LCDs. [pawnation.com]

There's other links out there for those that thought their "bright" animal watched TV. It certainly explained why the cat was never bothered by silent cats on TV, but had the shock of his life walking around the corner and seeing himself in the new full length mirror. Poof! Twice his normal size. :)

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758014)

Apparently not a very alert /.er. Only slow cats can see something resembling an image, the rest see a moving dot of light (for those with CRTs) or just a flickering stutter for slower LCDs.

That would be the motion I was talking about. Moving lights, a stutter, call it what you like. Didn't think he was seeing the actual image and interpreting it himself.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (1)

Nursie (632944) | about 3 years ago | (#37758178)

Not sure I believe this, as I've seen several cats chase butterflies and other small, edible creatures on the screen.

Re:Damn, I've been lettting my new baby watch TV (3, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | about 3 years ago | (#37758312)

Not sure I believe this, as the only show my cat likes is Fringe, which she watches religiously.

I would also add... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37757806)

Beer should also be recommended against in this age group.

Yeah... (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37757810)

I think most of TV is below the 2 year-old mentality.

This 1 year old doesn't understand printed images (3, Interesting)

hack slash (1064002) | about 3 years ago | (#37757812)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXV-yaFmQNk [youtube.com]

Do you laugh or do you weep for the future.

Re:This 1 year old doesn't understand printed imag (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 years ago | (#37757828)

Well, what that 1 year old is doing is not "watching," she is interacting, which is different.

Re:This 1 year old doesn't understand printed imag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758028)

The baby touches the toy and the colors change. You don't have to spend iPad money to get something like that.

Re:This 1 year old doesn't understand printed imag (5, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 3 years ago | (#37758230)

Given she managed to open/turn pages in both magazines I think she understands them pretty well. The grabby hand movements don't seem strange, babies like feeling things. The only strange thing in the video is that the baby doesn't try to taste the magazine or the iPad.

Re:This 1 year old doesn't understand printed imag (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37758260)

You call apples lawyers and inform them those magazines are deceptively ripping off the ipad's design and they should have the court halt their shipments until things are sorted out.

Re:This 1 year old doesn't understand printed imag (2)

517714 (762276) | about 3 years ago | (#37758612)

The corners aren't rounded, I think the magazines might have a slim chance.

Re:This 1 year old doesn't understand printed imag (1)

MichaelKristopeit404 (1978298) | about 3 years ago | (#37758462)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXV-yaFmQNk [youtube.com]

Do you laugh or do you weep for the future.

do you not understand how statements work or are you and idiot or both.

i have 2 children. babies like to crinkle paper. maybe if you weren't busy cowering behind your chosen wielded blade based pseudonym you'd realize the rest of the world is much more interesting than a 2 dimensional image, interactive or not... especially to someone who has experienced very little of it.

you're an idiot.

Re:This 1 year old doesn't understand printed imag (1)

DynamiteNeon (623949) | about 3 years ago | (#37759228)

Most children today may not be reading books off printed paper in the future anyway, so I consider it funny.

Baby Genuises (1)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | about 3 years ago | (#37757814)

Doctors also recommend against watching programs designed for kids under 2, unless psychotropic substances are involved.

Re:Baby Genuises (1)

fortfive (1582005) | about 3 years ago | (#37757990)

Time for Teletubbies!

Negligence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37757874)

Parents these days don't care, they just want their kids to rot in a couch while the TV babysits them.

The first years of life are critical, because that's when the child slowly learns about the world, how to socialize and the limits of their body.

Youtube songs are good family fun (4, Interesting)

j-stroy (640921) | about 3 years ago | (#37757936)

My 2 year old daughter loves ( L - O - V - E - S - !) the Fiest 1,2,3,4 Sesame Street video [youtube.com] and has watched it since she was a little younger than 1. She dances and sings and it has never gotten old. In the beginning she was so enamoured with it, it was like watching those old movies of Beatles fans grasping their heads and shrieking with delight. She'd wave at the characters and definitely was interpretting it right from the start. It had less than 7 million hits a year ago, and at 14 million and counting, I am sure she is not the only fan.

Introducing music to kids is great and I'd add that its fun for me to do too.. I'd have to say that this is different than plugging her into a TV set to watch the eye-candy slackjawed n drooling and I noted the ADHD link with fast edit kids media recently It is a much more interactive thing where she picks her favourite videos to watch as a treat. We talk about the characters and animals and sometimes do drawings after. Another favorite is a Woody Guthrie classic [youtube.com] and we sing it together sometimes. She digs the iPad since she can click on suggested videos at the end of one... OF course it is a supervise activity.

Re:Youtube songs are good family fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758056)

She'd wave at the characters and definitely was interpretting it right from the start.

Sounds like a contradiction. If she was waving at the TV, I don't think she was interpreting it right.

Re:Youtube songs are good family fun (1)

j-stroy (640921) | about 3 years ago | (#37758474)

Kids know the difference between real and make believe, but I just can't tell if you trollin' You ever cringed at a horror scene? Cheered at a sports moment? Done call and response with recorded music? Heard your goofy roommate "zomgwtfbbq!1 *giggle*" to Jersey Shore? Or spoke to bad sci-fi plot devices whether anyone was listening or not. Empathic enagement, same diff. You just roll with it to have fun. Children are wise, learn from them.

Re:Youtube songs are good family fun (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | about 3 years ago | (#37759154)

Kids know the difference between real and make believe...

There are a few studies that disagree with you on that. Kids as old as 8 and even 10 have problems separating real and imagined events.

Re:Youtube songs are good family fun (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 3 years ago | (#37758832)

Thanks, jerk. I'm going to have this song in my head for a month. ;)

Re:Youtube songs are good family fun (1)

DynamiteNeon (623949) | about 3 years ago | (#37759254)

I'm in the same boat. My daughter is 1 1/2 and loves sesame street. I keep tv to a minimum and always sit with her, but honestly, I don't really get the arguments that always focus on the educational value of TV. Isn't it ok to want to just wind down sometimes after a long day, even for children?

Not every second needs to be filled with learning. I can see times where my child is almost overstimulated from a long day and will wind down a bit when I give her the choice (yes she understands choices at this point) to just watch some muppets for a little while before bath time, book time, and then bed.

Re:Youtube songs are good family fun (1)

SpooForBrains (771537) | about 3 years ago | (#37759812)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4 (Nyan Cat) has proved an excellent distraction technique for my littlest when she is upset. Very useful for when we're waiting for her bottle to cool, or similar.

(ps, how the bloody hell do you post links on this godawful new AJAX abomination of a comment system? <a href= didn't work!)

The AAP has always been extremely conservative (4, Insightful)

assantisz (881107) | about 3 years ago | (#37757976)

The AAP has always been extremely conservative when it comes to children and TV. No surprise about the new findings here. As always, you have to take these findings with a huge grain of salt. Apply common sense and your kids will be fine. I know that mine are even though they watched a boat-load of TV when they were still toddlers (what kid would not appreciate a bit of Sesame Street or The Wiggles?). Now they are in elementary school and way too busy to watch anything and they are a-okay with that.

Re:The AAP has always been extremely conservative (1)

gnu-sucks (561404) | about 3 years ago | (#37758168)

Is it a "boat-load" or a "bit"?

See, this is what matters. I agree, it's not a surprise that keeping the TV on all day is detrimental to developing minds. Common sense? That sounds fine.

So why do we need a "huge grain" of salt? Your quantities are very confusing.

Re:The AAP has always been extremely conservative (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 3 years ago | (#37758424)

Now they are in elementary school and way too busy to watch anything and they are a-okay with that.

Way too busy? Of their own accord or being loaded down by work?

As compared to... (5, Interesting)

gerf (532474) | about 3 years ago | (#37758024)

Back in the day, parents would keep kids sequestered in playpens so that parents could get chores done easier. While TV is probably not the best answer, is there ever a good answer to distracting kids so you can do laundry, make food, take a shower or other necessary tasks?

Re:As compared to... (3, Funny)

nrozema (317031) | about 3 years ago | (#37758066)

is there ever a good answer to distracting kids so you can do laundry, make food, take a shower or other necessary tasks?

Playpens with TVs?

Re:As compared to... (1)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37758156)

is there ever a good answer to distracting kids so you can do laundry, make food, take a shower or other necessary tasks?

Playpens with TVs?

For our kids that works about as well as caging any animal. They scream and cry and carry on. Would you want your managers to put you in a cage at work. (Granted hopefully you're better at looking after yourself than an infant).

Re:As compared to... (3, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37758282)

I take it you've never had to work in a cubical before.

Re:As compared to... (3, Informative)

smellotron (1039250) | about 3 years ago | (#37758806)

For our kids that works about as well as caging any animal. They scream and cry and carry on.

The biggest problem I see here is that you should approach this as crating your child, not caging him (or her). A proper crate should be more or less covered to act as a sort of "den" or "cave" in which your child may seek refuge. You should feed your child in his (or her) crate to train him (or her) to develop positive associations. Please note that because it is a refuge, your child must be allowed and encouraged to urinate outside of the crate rather than soil his (or her) own den. Over time, you'll find that the screaming subsides and your child will be able to spend more time in the crate—up to 8 hours, if you must work away from home—without issues.

Re:As compared to... (1)

larien (5608) | about 3 years ago | (#37759948)

Bastard... I only just managed to avoid coating my monitor with coffee...

Re:As compared to... (1)

farnsworth (558449) | about 3 years ago | (#37758200)

[...] is there ever a good answer to distracting kids so you can do laundry, make food, take a shower or other necessary tasks?

This finding seems to be specifically about kids two and under. It's not that hard to wrangle those kids and make dinner at the same time. They will slow you down for sure, but, for much of the time they can't even walk. The thought of an 11-month-old being plopped in front of a TV or a tablet for "much of the day" frankly makes me sad.

Re:As compared to... (4, Insightful)

darjen (879890) | about 3 years ago | (#37758330)

You have obviously never had kids. You have NO idea how rowdy they start getting around dinner time.

Re:As compared to... (1)

farnsworth (558449) | about 3 years ago | (#37758534)

You have obviously never had kids. You have NO idea how rowdy they start getting around dinner time.

I have multiple kids and no spouse, so I think I am familiar with how to handle making dinner among kids of various ages.

Re:As compared to... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758598)

You have obviously never had kids. You have NO idea how rowdy they start getting around dinner time.

What's obvious to me is that how children behave varies considerably. Some of it's nature and some of it's nurture. I raised my children who are now adults, and I've watched other peoples kids. I've got grandchildren now ranging in age from 1 to 9. I've never had a much of a problem preparing meals and watching young children. When the children are especially young gates go up on the doorways to the kitchen and the kids are given lots of toys to play with on the kitchen floor. I make an effort to talk to them while I'm cooking. I pick them up and show them what I'm doing. When possible I let them 'help'. Something else that kept them preoccupied was a small table that they could stand or sit at and pretend they were preparing a meal, too. Give them some real ingredients and let them make a bit of a mess. We've never kept a television in the house, so the children never had an expectation that if they whined they would be put in front of a television. Four of my siblings had children, and I know none of them used a television to babysit their kids, during mealtimes or any other times. It really is possible to manage children without a television and keep your sanity.

Re:As compared to... (1)

smolloy (1250188) | about 3 years ago | (#37759442)

I have two kids, and no TV, and it really isn't so frighteningly difficult to get stuff done that I want to have a TV babysit them. I agree with the GP -- the thought of an 11 month old sitting in front of a TV or a tablet for extended periods really makes me sad.

Re:As compared to... (0)

darjen (879890) | about 3 years ago | (#37758358)

Go ahead and be sad if you want. I have no problem letting my children watch tv while I get stuff done around the house. You have no idea how rowdy a 1.5 year old can get around dinner time.

Re:As compared to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758664)

blink blink. Why don't you feed the 1.5 year old first? Do you really want them torturing you vying for your attention during the meal?
I have 2 kids and we never had them eat at the same time as the adults until they were 3 years old.

And why TV? Why can't they just play in a pack and play or look at books or color?

What I hear is "well, I need to distract them and can't figure out any other way because the magical moving light works... who cares if it screws them up"

And while I'm on the podium... for people with kids old than 2. Watch the TV with them and answer their questions. Don't let them watch things with high amounts of action until they're 5 or so. They don't need it and they won't be able to understand it. PBS man. That's where its at.
My niece was babysat by disney corporation 4 hours a day every day. She has seen every disney movie there is. She understands practically none of it.

We were watching Aladdin the other day, with my daughter and my niece ( they are both 5 ). They've both seen it before. I asked why the cave of wonders monster swallowed the thief and my niece was dumbfounded. All she could say was "The bad man will trick Aladdin to do it"
My daughter said "He wasn't worthy. Jafar was trying to get into the cave of wonders to seal the lamp, but you have to be a good person to be able to get in. You have to have a good heart like Aladdin."

Her understanding of the film was so much deeper. And she wasn't prompted or memorized.. she's only seen it 2 times before.
She learned to pay attention and listen what everyone was saying. She understands while my neice simply watches the blinking pictures and gets a vague understanding of the plot.

And I'm not saying my daughter is special. It's just because of the effort my wife and I took when letting her watch TV.
You have to start off slow, and be very thoughtful... talk about what you're watching. Limit the time they're allowed to watch and the content tremendously ( thank god for Tivo ) once the TV starts to be in charge is when you lose the battle.

Sesame Street, Mr Rogers, Dinosaur train, super why, bob the builder, ( and if you must have disney, LItlte Einsteins and Micky Mouse Club house are passable but very little education value past 2 years old ).

BUt it's vitally important to watch a new show WITH them the first few times so you can guide them into what's important and help the interact.

Well, I doubt anyone will actually read this since I posted anonymously ( been posting for 10 years and never got an account... had this funny outdated idea about anonymity from back in the day... nevermind )

Re:As compared to... (1)

quenda (644621) | about 3 years ago | (#37758394)

Playpens _are_ the answer, if you want to interact with an under-2, while working with dangerous tools (cooking, ironing, soldering).
Even a crawling baby can move very fast.
Though these days, with open-plan homes, it is usually easier to put a gate on the kitchen area and have the parent in the pen.

Re:As compared to... (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37759188)

Proper parenting would be to put the child in a playpen with a badger. Teaches the kids to be ready for Thunderdome in about 30 years.

Back in what day? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 3 years ago | (#37759474)

In times gone by women worked the field and carried their babies with them. As the children learned to walk to would first play work and soon work for real.

Or are you talking of days gone by in which very young children were send down the mines because they fit in the narrowest spaces, don't get paid much and nobody cared to much if they died?

What yesterday are you talking about?

This is just stupid (1, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | about 3 years ago | (#37758104)

infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on" no matter how well done a video is

This is just plain stupid. It isn't even a good lie. The "The American Academy of Pediatrics" us a self selecting group. It is one that has always seen TV as evil. My son was beating multiple levels of Pac-Man before he was 1 year old. Literally before he could walk. There is no way that this would have been possible if children couldn't understand what was happening on the screen before the age of 2.

Anyone that has bothered to talk to an 18 month old knows that they understand what is going on on the TV.

Re:This is just stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758236)

My son was beating multiple levels of Pac-Man before he was 1 year old. Literally before he could walk.

I'm glad you've got your priorities in order.

Re:This is just stupid (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 3 years ago | (#37759582)

That comment doesn't make any sense. It sound sarcastic, but I really can't think of what you might be implying a child under one year old would be tasked with that would not leave them enough time to play.

Re:This is just stupid (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 years ago | (#37759506)

Put them in a cage with the people who advocate against TV for kids under 2 because of the marketing effects and watch the idiocy feedback levels reach supercriticality.

TV has been great for our kids (5, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37758142)

This is just nonsense.

My son wouldn't talk till he was over 2 years old. We were starting to worry. Then he discovered Thomas the Tank Engine. Suddenly he wanted to say the names of the engines and he learnt his colours too. That led to shapes. At 3 he's now on to identifying numbers on the sides of the engines, he's got an incredible imagination. With no prompting he drew a passable clown face on his face when momentarily left alone with a texter (and showed how he'd close his eyes when he was warned that he could poke his eyes out). He's been to the circus exactly twice. I'll bet he got that from TV. He knows some letters because he's learnt H is for horn for example when we play Trainz with Thomas characters, or that you hit W to go forward. He has limited mouse and keyboard skills but his comprehension impresses me. He goes to preschool now so that's helping his social development. He is not allowed to sit there and do nothing but watch TV. My wife plays and draws and bakes cookies and everything else you would expect a young child do.

My daughter's developing speech sooner. She's not 18 months old yet but she's asking for certain objects with abbreviated words "bub" for bubble etc. She loves TV shows too. She usually prefers to watch with her brother and she's a very social little creature indeed.

Young children may not have the skills to understand at high level concepts, but they sure as hell can follow a kids TV show. And as long as it's not all they do, I think it's very important to their development.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758292)

This is just nonsense. My son wouldn't talk till he was over 2 years old. We were starting to worry. Then he discovered Thomas the Tank Engine...

I see you missed the part where they recommended that television is not appropriate for CHILDREN UNDER TWO.

My daughter's developing speech sooner. She's not 18 months old yet but she's asking for certain objects with abbreviated words "bub" for bubble etc. She loves TV shows too. She usually prefers to watch with her brother and she's a very social little creature indeed.

I'd bet my paycheck that your daughter is picking up language faster not because of television, but because of interaction with your family, including your son.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37758314)

I'd bet my paycheck that your daughter is picking up language faster not because of television, but because of interaction with your family, including your son.

It's easy to say you'd take that bet when there is no way of actually proving one way or another.

And no, I didn't miss the part about children under 2. BOTH my children have been watching TV since their eyes could focus. But they have been doing plenty of other things too, so they don't miss out. At no stage did I say that TV should be their entire world, at any age.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

farnsworth (558449) | about 3 years ago | (#37758294)

This is just nonsense.

My son wouldn't talk till he was over 2 years old. We were starting to worry. Then he discovered Thomas the Tank Engine. Suddenly he wanted to say the names of the engines and he learnt his colours too. [...]

Billions and billions of kids have developed fine without any TV at all, it's not necessarily nonsense. There are always outliers and special circumstances that are contrary to "normal", but that is not to say that spending "much of the day" with a TV is helpful to most kids under two years old. There is a big difference between a kid who is over 2 years old discovering Thomas The Tank Engine compared to someone who has not even turned one spending much of the day watching TV.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37758328)

Billions and billions of kids have developed fine without any TV at all, it's not necessarily nonsense. There are always outliers and special circumstances that are contrary to "normal", but that is not to say that spending "much of the day" with a TV is helpful to most kids under two years old. There is a big difference between a kid who is over 2 years old discovering Thomas The Tank Engine compared to someone who has not even turned one spending much of the day watching TV.

I did not say that TV was a requirement for a child to develop, so why the straw man?

All children should have limited time in front of the TV, because they should be out doing things with family and friends. But there is no way to severely restrict or eliminate TV, nor to suggest that it isn't a good avenue for learning.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37758334)

No way you should severly restrict is what I meant to say.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

farnsworth (558449) | about 3 years ago | (#37758528)

I did not say that TV was a requirement for a child to develop, so why the straw man?

All children should have limited time in front of the TV, because they should be out doing things with family and friends. But there is no way to severely restrict or eliminate TV, nor to suggest that it isn't a good avenue for learning.

I did not intend a straw man at all. You seemed to be implying that TV was needed (or significantly helped) your son to develop speech, therefor this science is nonsense. I was countering that with the fact that your son was over 2, and this study is specifically about kids under 2. Also, for a ~2 year old who is not in school, "much of the day" must be like 6-8 hours.

What works for your kids does not debunk general scientific guidance or support a position that it is nonsense. I'm glad you found something that works.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758332)

I'm guessing you and his other parent should have been spending more time working with the child to get them to talk and be interested in something rather than allowing a TV to raise them.

But nah, that would defeat your entire support of a device which is totally useless.

Your child should not watch TV and you should take a more active role in raising them and teaching them.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758340)

My wife plays and draws and bakes cookies and everything else you would expect a young child do.

.

Excellent, but I thought this was about children, not child brides.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37759120)

My wife plays and draws and bakes cookies and everything else you would expect a young child do.

.

Excellent, but I thought this was about children, not child brides.

If you think it's healthy for children not to have an adult willing to engage in play with them, then I pity you. Of course I suspect that's not the case and that it's just a poor attempt at a troll.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 years ago | (#37758346)

Oh, so your one anecdote outweighs the American Academy of Pediatrics? So, what was your doctorate in? Oh, you don't have one? Freaking breeders...

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 3 years ago | (#37758782)

argument from authority. that one anecdote could be right, you never know until you determine the facts. TV is not any worse than any other influence in the environment.. too few can severely limit a child's worldview.. of course we're talking about the under 5yo set, so much of this is N/A anyway.

maybe if you quit worshiping wingnut politics and focus on the fact that most 'science' concerning heavily politicized issues (like child development) is highly suspect due to many so-called scientists sacrificing correctness for money or ideological reasons, you'd discover that even vaunted federal organizations like the AAP doesn't have all the bases covered. if TV is 'bad', then it's not so just because the nanny state says so..I can guarantee that its 'goodness' or 'badness' is subjective and different for each child/family.

Fucking faggots.. ('hate' speech: don't like it? then don't use it yourself)

Re:TV has been great for our kids (5, Interesting)

ckhorne (940312) | about 3 years ago | (#37758368)

I have to agree. I have a daughter who is 2 years old next month, and we allow about one hour of TV per day - about 30 mins in the morning and about 30 mins at night - enough for one or two of her favorite educational cartoons. She asks for them by name (clearly and persistently...), and I feel that as long as she's learning from them, then I'm ok with them.

And learn she has. Everything from identifying airplanes, airports, dump trucks, numbers, colors to concepts like "on/off", "go/stop", etc. We're lucky to have my mother-in-law watch her every other day and she works with her constantly, so she gets plenty of direct people interaction.

She's also allowed about 30 minutes of iPad time per day, which she loves - she plays games that identifies animals, concepts, and such. She can pick out and say aardvark, beaver, lemur, or any of 50 other non-basic animals from a large list of pictures in a matter of seconds. Critical life skills, no, but this is about learning the world around her.

Having said all this - it's not about TV in particular. It's about what type of media they are exposed to, in what quantity, and the type. Moderation in everything, and this is no exception. Before I get raked over the coals, I'll state that she spends as much time daily with me outside in the grass, at the playground, at the pool, with her wooden blocks, etc, etc as she does watching TV. Again, it's not about the medium - it's about moderating exposure and parental involvement.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37759256)

These are things your child should not be learning.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

Snorbert Xangox (10583) | about 3 years ago | (#37758472)

[...] He is not allowed to sit there and do nothing but watch TV. My wife plays and draws and bakes cookies and everything else you would expect a young child do.

I expected a lot from my young children, but I never expected them to bake cookies!

(My wife plays and draws and bakes cookies with my kids too, BTW... sorry, I just couldn't resist the exploitable typo :-)

Re:TV has been great for our kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758494)

My wife plays and draws and bakes cookies and everything else you would expect a young child do.

Umm... I wouldnt expect a young child to bake cookies. I would also not expect your wife to be a young child!

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

The Great Pretender (975978) | about 3 years ago | (#37758558)

It's all about moderation, not this binary do or do not. My kid watched TV from around 1.5, but even today (he's now 5) he only gets 30-45mins a day, with 1 movie on the weekends.I have a friend who confesses that he and his wife used the TV as a nanny. Both kids are pretty smart, both kids play well, but what both my friend and I have noticed, is that my son is the first up with an idea for a game and his son is always happy to follow. I see this in a lot of other kids (I know I'm making a generalization here) those few who have had too much TV when younger play well, but it seems to me they need the 'imagination' fed to them, the way the TV fed the concepts to them. I'm sure there's exception to the rule, I'm not a child psychologist and this is just casual, non-scientific observation.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

BitHive (578094) | about 3 years ago | (#37758600)

Let me counter your anecdote with two of my own. In the house of one of my childhood friends, multiple TVs were on almost 24 hours a day. You could not speak to any member of that family while in the same room as one of those TVs without their gaze migrating away from you and back to the TV.

Needless to say, this was not a healthy family and it did not stay together long.

My parents severely restricted my access to TV and incidentally I went to better schools and I earn more money than my childhood friends who had TVs in their rooms.

What do these anecdotes have to do with the effects of TV on 2-year-olds? Not a lot.

Re:TV has been great for our kids (1)

spicate (667270) | about 3 years ago | (#37759158)

And as long as it's not all they do, I think it's very important to their development.

You've shared a nice anecdote, but I have one too. My 2 year old daughter watches zero TV and is doing pretty well. She speaks in full sentences ("daddy, come join us for breakfast"), counts to 13, knows her ABCs, can identify almost every animal at the zoo... whenever we're out in public people comment on how articulate she is.

I'm not claiming she's exceptional or that her progress has anything to do with our avoidance of television. I think it's probably more about personal attention from her parents and caregivers, lots of time reading with her parents, and her own particular path of development. She's not missing out by avoiding kids' programming, and she is definitely being exposed to less advertising.

The whole point of the recommendations is that an hour of quality time with an adult is vastly superior to an hour of television in terms of learning and cognitive development. That's the conclusion most researchers have come to over the years. Sure, limited time watching TV probably doesn't hurt. Research has show that it doesn't benefit most children, and that large amounts of television watching are probably harmful.

the main problem with things like television (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758146)

it trains your mind to be led by something other than your mind itself.

so even if television wasnt full of violence and myriad sexual innuendis (which it is), but instead filled only with decent people doing decent things, it would still exert a tremendous and unquantifiable amount of damage to the normal healthy mental fitness of any human cognitive enough to interpret any part of its message at any basic level.

i hate to say it but technology has dehumanized humanity. many have seen it pervading the social fabric already, decades ago. they were ridiculed and derided by people much like myself until a few years ago when the evidence became too overwhelming for me to continue living a lie.

our society is now filled with people that cannot concentrate on anything important for too long, seldom dwell on any actually important topic, and have very little desire to muse on anything. we all want fast paced, lots of colors, quick shallow messages that can be digested without any heavy mental thought given.

i am reading a book right now that echos my feelings on this far better than i can articulate. it is called 'high tech heretic' by clifford stoll (better known for his non fiction book 'the cuckoos egg' when he tracked down hackers that were working for the kgb and were breaking into the vms / bsd box's at his university decades ago)

Re:the main problem with things like television (2)

syousef (465911) | about 3 years ago | (#37758248)

our society is now filled with people that cannot concentrate on anything important for too long, seldom dwell on any actually important topic, and have very little desire to muse on anything. we all want fast paced, lots of colors, quick shallow messages that can be digested without any heavy mental thought given.

Funny, I thought we'd made some pretty ground breaking scientific discoveries, and tech had helped us all push the boundaries of both art and science. But I guess that's too glass half full for you?

Re:the main problem with things like television (1)

BitHive (578094) | about 3 years ago | (#37758816)

It is true that some individuals have and continue to achieve the things you mention. However, the parent is making a critique of our behavior as a group.

While I neither agree nor disagree, your hasty reply intended to dismiss as pessimistic an opinion that hits close to home only seems to make his point wouldn't you say user 465911?

Re:the main problem with things like television (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#37758376)

i am reading a book right now that echos my feelings on this far better than i can articulate...

It's not because he watched less TV than you, he's just a better writer.

And why should they be allowed TV after age 2? (3, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 3 years ago | (#37758298)

Just wondering. TV isn't just bad for babies.

No Control Group (2)

retroworks (652802) | about 3 years ago | (#37758304)

Everyone has been exposed to TV since Howdy Doody and Clarabel the Clown. What the study shows is that human contact and caring - WITH or WITHOUT television - is goodness. If you substitute TV for empty room, good. Substitute TV for siblings fighting in living room, ok. Substitute TV for caring interactive parents? Bad, Maybe?

Re:No Control Group (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758652)

Everyone has been exposed to TV since Howdy Doody and Clarabel the Clown. What the study shows is that human contact and caring - WITH or WITHOUT television - is goodness. If you substitute TV for empty room, good. Substitute TV for siblings fighting in living room, ok. Substitute TV for caring interactive parents? Bad, Maybe?

I read part of this article earlier and the bad statistics is the main thing that struck me as well. Here's an interesting trend I've noticed among articles from the past 10 years on the subject of early childhood brain development: They all suck at statistics, and the ones that are longitudinal are, for some reason, given equal weight when compared to crappy parent surveys. In fact, one can find a dozen recent research articles to support practically any viewpoint, as long as they ignore all letters of criticism that followed publication. See, when you do the very difficult job of correcting for biases, effects and correlations disappear. I realize that correcting biases isn't always possible, given tiny sample sizes, but that's not my problem. That should have been figured into the study. Otherwise, we're getting into the territory of case studies and not actual research.

For example, this article from Pediatrics titled "Television Viewing in Infancy and Child Cognition at 3 Years of Age in a US Cohort":
http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/123/3/e370.short

Notice how they did their damnedest to remove statistical biases. Also, notice how they used standardized tests. You know, so results can be repeated, which is kind of important given that this is supposed to be scientific. Then notice how test score differences disappear. Magic! Also, oh gee, that's the same journal. *Whistles innocently*

Okay, well, maybe I cherry-picked that one to illustrate my point.

In other words, the case is far from settled. Chances are, TV probably has little negative effect on infant brain development, but the kind of parents who allow infants to watch TV also have child rearing tendencies that DO have a marked effect on brain development. I'm using the phrasing "negative effect" because there's some effect. There's always an effect on brain development if an activity is repeated daily during infancy.

There really should be a "bad astronomy" blog equivalent for psychology articles that involving parenting, because not enough of this crap gets called out.

LIMIT being the keyword (3, Insightful)

nephillim (980798) | about 3 years ago | (#37758322)

First, I am going to have to call B.S. on at least part of the summary:

infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on" no matter how well done a video is

They can enjoy music, motion, colors, and even learn to understand what is going on. My first daughter watched https://www.babysigningtime.com/ [babysigningtime.com] from about 6 months (give or take a bit) and by 1 had a rather extensive signing vocabulary. At first she would watch 1 segment and gradually would watch one 30 minute episode (each episode had about 6 segments with a group of related signs in song format). The songs were catchy and the colors were flashy. Even if she was just sitting and playing and not paying full attention, I felt it was a fine musical background. Also, her watching was not always a solo activity. Many days, her and I would curl up together on the couch and watch the episode right before bed as a way to unwind. I was hoping http://www.yourbabycanread.com/ [yourbabycanread.com] would catch her attention too, but when she wanted a show on it was almost always Signing Time.

Most people will immediately take the knee-jerk reaction and think they can't let a child watch anything. Sure, if you let the television babysit your child for hours you will have issues. Like everything else in this world, there is a need for moderation and parental involvement. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with letting a child watch things like the previously mentioned shows, Sesame Street, Super Why, or Sid the Science Kid, so long as it is not being used as a substitute for parenting.

(I do not work for nor have any association with any of the aforementioned programming)
(Post based on empirical evidence, not a scientific study. Your mileage may vary. Perhaps my child turned out great DESPITE my efforts.)

harmful to discover 3D world on 2D screen? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37758402)

I mentioned to friends of mine who were new parents of twins and had discovered "Baby Einstein" that I didn't think television was a good thing for early developing minds. Specifically, I was concerned with 3D perception developing from looking at a 2D screen.

  This was where I learned to be very careful commenting on others child rearing decisions.

  I guess I really stepped over the line when I wondered about the possible correlation of TV's in households to Autism...

A quick search brings up more than speculation.. here's a 2006 Slate article that begins in the same place I did.. with speculation:
TV might really cause Autism [slate.com]

If You Think I'm Going to Wait . . . (2)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | about 3 years ago | (#37758592)

. . . another year to use the computer, you are out of your fucking mind!

What else? (1)

pentadecagon (1926186) | about 3 years ago | (#37759086)

They had better come up with alternative proposals what to do with the babies when there is no full-time Nanny around.

huh? (1)

dropadrop (1057046) | about 3 years ago | (#37759186)

I would have imagined limited watching of tv and computers would be recommended for people of all ages. Personally I limit tv to one hour a day and computers to a few hours a week even for my older child.

This... (1)

g6mrfixit (2022564) | about 3 years ago | (#37759808)

...is news? Really?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?