Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

STATmelatonin t1_j78wk7g wrote

The median screen time was about 2 hrs a day at 12 months. That’s a lot of TV for a baby.

168

healthierlurker t1_j79qvm9 wrote

That’s way too much TV time for any child, even older children, let alone a baby.

28

XxhumanguineapigxX t1_j7atcaj wrote

I don't have kids so it's irrelevant to me, but 2 hours a day doesn't seem like much at all? Maybe I'm mad.

I remember growing up watching a ~20min episode of a cartoon in the morning eating breakfast, then would continue watching 2-3 episodes of whatever was on cartoon network with my brother when we got home from school while mum cooked dinner and washed lunch boxes etc. I'd already be on ~1.5 hours from that alone.

Sometimes after dinner we'd all watch a movie together like Disney, or a few eps of the discovery channel (whole fam was obsessed with crocodile hunter growing up). I will say it wasn't every day - sometimes we played outside on the trampoline, or played with lego etc. But 2 hours across a whole day I guess doesn't feel like much to me!

62

Mr_Abobo t1_j7b5499 wrote

That’s as a child. As an owner of a baby, I can tell you they don’t really watch things like adults or even children do. Two hours of screen time is wild because that means they’re being plunked down and forgotten about, most likely.

61

ramonycajal88 t1_j7bajl8 wrote

So are the cognative issues due to the screen time? Or is it a lack of active interaction and bonding?

Parenting is tough, so I can imagine parents hand off their tablets or turn on the TV to get some quiet time. But, sounds like we need to figure out better ways to make that screen time interactive.

34

Taoistandroid t1_j7brnt1 wrote

Parents with executive disfunction might be influencing these results both genetically, and behaviorally. ADHD parents can have a hard time staying engaged.

So the study mentions, this doesn't prove a direct cause relationship, they need a better designed experiment for that.

19

electricvelvet t1_j7hvwxb wrote

As is almost always the case in scientific studies; it's not a flaw in the study. And this is an incredibly complex confluence of multiple high order systems--parenting, genetics, context, screen exposure to infants--you can't just do one good study/experiment. Too many variables would lead to useless data. Pick ONE and do that, which they did. It's limited info but at least we see correlation from this one (kinda big one).

Edit: and then you get the studies that people deride as useless because they just corroborate something seemingly obvious--ie "study shows parents with ADHD more likely to have children with ADHD." But you combine that with this, another study that says "parents with attention disorders more likely to have children who spend excessive amounts of time on screens" which would call into question whether the original study was merely correlation, or causation. Then have a follow-up study comparing, idk, infants with 2+ hrs of screen time and neurotypical parents to ADHD parents (which then runs the risk of unreliable self-reporting for the parents... and further questions about defining what qualifies as genetic predisposition towards ADHD, and what qualifies as ADHD etc). It gets complicated fast and there will rarely ever be a clear-cut answer, especially when it comes to anything to do with neurology, since we know so little about it currently. But hey that's why we have universities full of research scientists all around the world engaging in scientific dialog and peer review.

4

Lucky_Pyro t1_j7bpgga wrote

I wish this were part of the study... unfortunately, my kids watch alot of TV (23 mos and 7mos). But we are there with them singing songs and pointing out characters and interacting. Now, Disney is very fast paced for kids, unfortunately, but we try no screen time for a little bit each day, and dinner at the table with no screens. Neither of our kids use our phones or tablets, and while the TV is playing they are playing with toys and books which we also play with. Parenting is not easy, and there are so many ways to do it. Not a one size fits all.

18

ramonycajal88 t1_j7bqs6j wrote

Agreed! I don't think all children shows need to be "educational". But, the bonding and interactive aspect seems significant.

6

chicojuarz t1_j7bf6rt wrote

The study seems to say they don’t know because the data isn’t detailed enough to tell the difference.

7

notsurewhattosay-- t1_j7bkg69 wrote

I used to own a baby. Two actually. They grew up. Sadly I lost ownership. They adulted.

8

chicojuarz t1_j7bf4ff wrote

Screen time had a strong correlation to household income in the study

7

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7ax118 wrote

I was so confused by this post. Who gives "screen time" to an infant? Infants amuse themselves by just existing and i couldn't even begin to understand why an infant would need any type of media at all.

22

usr_dev t1_j7b09yx wrote

So the adult who cares for this other human being 24/7 can get a pause.

32

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7b0zef wrote

Give them a box for gods sake.

Infants are idiots and are amused by everything around them including themselves. Obviously this rule doesn't apply to every infant but in my own experience I have never met an infant that couldn't keep themselves occupied with basically anything.

This is the reasoning behind people that lock everything up in their homes and baby proof everything. Infants are curious little shits that keep themselves occupied by whatever means possible.

−13

TumbleWeed_64 t1_j7b3d59 wrote

Found the person without children.

29

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7bb9k3 wrote

I have 5 kids and I'm also the parent that never used a pacifier.

Good try though I guess

−2

forests-of-purgatory t1_j7c7h98 wrote

Why no pacifier? In babies they reduce the risk of SIDS?

11

unknownkaleidoscope t1_j8dtvkd wrote

Pacifiers are awful for oral development. SIDS, while tragic, is not really common at all, and it’s largely not preventable. There are also other ways to reduce risk, like not smoking, room sharing, etc. that are only beneficial and do not mess up their oral development.

0

forests-of-purgatory t1_j8e8win wrote

Pacifiers do not affect oral development in the first few months of life

Sids is worse than bad teeth, even if less likely

2

forests-of-purgatory t1_j8ea1q3 wrote

“Normal pacifier use during the first few years of life generally doesn't cause long-term dental problems. However, prolonged pacifier use might cause a child's teeth to be misaligned.” -Mayo clinic

“Pacifiers are not necessarily bad for your baby if they are weaned off of them before the age of two. After that, teeth start to develop, and oral health can be impacted.“ - oral surgery of utah

I said months in my other comment but apparently its a few years. Most places recommend pacifiers between ages 1-6 months to reduce SIDS risk anyways, just wean them off before oral development would be affected and its a win win

Edited like 3 times to figure out formatting, oh the difference a space makes

1

unknownkaleidoscope t1_j8ew29t wrote

The protective factor of pacifiers is minimal and can be made up in other ways, like breastfeeding and room sharing…

Pacifiers are a breast replacement option. If you breastfeed, you don’t need pacifiers unless it’s your preference. Some parents don’t have that preference because they don’t want to risk oral development issues or dependency… I’m not sure why this is controversial. Use pacifiers if you want, all I was doing is answering your question on why some parents choose not to use a pacifier.

1

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7fdes0 wrote

Being around parents that used pacifiers with their kids made me feel like it was used as a "crutch" for both the child and the parent.

I just never liked the concept of it.

Apparently it's because I like to picture myself sitting on a throne judging the other peasant parents I guess. Tumbleweed over here knows me more than I know myself so you can just ask them.

−1

corcyra t1_j7bateq wrote

>Infants are idiots

>Infants are curious little shits that keep themselves occupied by whatever means possible

Choose one, because they can't both be true. Also, don't think you've ever had kids.

2

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7birv2 wrote

You can think whatever you want but your opinions unfortunately don't change reality.

How exactly can someone not be an idiot as well as curious and easily occupied? I hate to break it to you but it's extremely easy to entertain a stupid person, not so much with the opposite side of the spectrum.

3

corcyra t1_j7d2yij wrote

Because lack of curiosity is a hallmark of the idiot.

What you don't understand (I'm guessing you don't know that many children or even like them very much, given the way you talk about them) is what kids are doing when they play. There's an old saying that if you give a child a toy with only one function, they'll get bored with it very quickly and go play with the box, because the box can become anything. That's not stupidity, but the nascent human spirit of enquiry which led to the steam engine, among other useful things.

4

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7fceo1 wrote

Ok. As a matter of fact I have 5 kids and I grew up babysitting kids. I apologize for offending you by using the word idiot because I was obviously 100% attempting to insult children.

I'm really not sorry, but hopefully my apology will make you feel better and you will go away. Toodles!

1

SilentHunter7 t1_j7bq21y wrote

I did. We used to watch Cocomelon and Have Fun Teaching a lot together; he loved the counting ducks and the ABCs. Part of our bedtime routine was a 3 minute cartoon video of singing Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

I was wondering if we were giving too much screen time to him, until he recited his ABCs and knew his planets by sight at 1 year old. Little dude's 5 now, and really into Numberblocks. Kid knows almost all of his times tables (still stumbles with 7's and 8's), which is damn impressive amount for a kindergartener and can do powers of 2 up until 1024.

You ask me, I think educational screen time should be studied for beneficial effects of childhood development. Did a treat on my little guy.

9

PIK_Toggle t1_j7c0if1 wrote

My nephew wants to play with my sister-in-law’s phone whenever he sees it. He’s 18 months now. He’s been doing this since he was around six months old.

I changed the settings on my sons iPad so that I can control how much time he gets. I give him access in 15 minute increments. That’s it.

We will watch movies on the weekends sometimes as a treat.

Screens are everywhere. It’s a constant battle.

9

AnAliebn99 t1_j8dmpw0 wrote

In the apartment I lived last, my neighbors were giving their baby 6+ hours of screen time a day. I lived there from the baby being around 6mo-1.5 years. They would just put her in the high chair, and put the high chair maybe 3 feet from the tv and just play movies all day long. She would eat all her meals in front of it. By the time she could sit up on her own, she was totally addicted. She’d plop herself down right in front of the tv and was totally entranced. It was crazy to see.

Now she’s 4 and really struggling.

1

twitchyv t1_j7crjtd wrote

Yeah that’s wild. This why I, as a nanny, refuse to do screen time with any kids under 5 which is easier said than done if the parents share the same philosophical views on screen time. But under my watch, there’s no screens!

7

jtb1987 t1_j7bhoxl wrote

Providing internet access with privacy allows baby's and young children to find and connect with others that can support their identities and values so that parents are prevented from instilling their own toxic values.

−6

TwoFlower68 t1_j7bn4jt wrote

A 12 month old baby is not going to screen time with a peer, more's the pity

7

DragonRei86 t1_j780u21 wrote

Anyone else's child show zero interest in the TV until they were a bit older? My son didn't care about the TV at all no matter what was on, until he was about 2.5

88

samsg1 t1_j798idt wrote

Same. Sometimes for my mental health I desperately needed some time to myself, but a tv couldn’t hold my kids’ attention until they were about 4.

It takes a village to raise a kid.

24

Dumguy1214 t1_j7aiaej wrote

I have been called many things, babysitter was unexpected

leave my feed on, it calms the child

I have no clue

2

prinoodles t1_j781sw5 wrote

My child is 4.5 and her tv time is about one episode of Sesame Street on the weekend if she remembers it. This only started like 6 months ago when she got sick and we were trying to make her rest. I think if you start the kid off with books and fun activities, they don’t tend to find tv that interesting. When my daughter was younger, when we went to other people’ houses and they had tv on, she would watch for 5 minutes and lose interest. Real world is a lot more interesting to her.

21

PartyPorpoise t1_j79401m wrote

That makes sense. Little kids are interested in actually doing things, interacting with things. I always suspected that issues from too much screen time may be more common in kids who get a lot of screen time early on.

6

Bubble_James_Bubble t1_j79wa3u wrote

Also, if they see you reading, they are much more likely to read.

7

PartyPorpoise t1_j79y0g2 wrote

And it almost goes without saying, but kids need to have access to different activities if you want them off the screen. Are there books, toys, and crafts in the home? I hate when parents complain about their kids not doing things when they don’t give them the opportunity to do it.

7

Wunderlandtripzz t1_j78wzv1 wrote

My 9mo isnt interested unless he hears something loud. Ill consider it a good thing

17

healthierlurker t1_j79q4bv wrote

One of my 4 month olds will be glued to the TV if it’s on in the background or a phone screen if it’s in front of him. When they were younger I liked to have YouTube videos with music playing on the TV during the day but now we have to keep the TV off whenever they’re facing it. We don’t intend to give them any screen-time until they’re 2+ and it will be in accordance with available guidance.

6

jfVigor t1_j7spvw8 wrote

I have a 4 month old who is the same way. Glued to screens.

1

Party_Egg_8529 t1_j8h7lxi wrote

My 14mo old does not care about TV at all. His 3yr old brother only watches train videos or trains restoration videos. He doesn’t seem to like animated cartoons. He went through a cars1,2,3 phase but it’s over now. My mom said I’ve been watching TV since 2 month old. I don’t know how because my 14mo can’t sit still more than 5 mins at a time. He’s always up to something.

1

DragonRei86 t1_j8i10yp wrote

Even now, my 3yo only really watches music videos.

1

TarthenalToblakai t1_j79i7m5 wrote

As per usual: correlation is not necessarily causation.

Is too much screen time the cause, or is it an underlying symptom itself?

ADHD, for example, inherently comes with executive dysfunction, emotional regulation, impulse control issues, etc. It also drives a compulsive need for dopamine and stimulation seeking, in turn making one more susceptible to addictions (whether it be TV, video games, gambling, drugs, sex, etc.)

Furthermore, it has a strong genetic component. If a kid has it chances are at least one of their parents also has it. Executive dysfunction in adults leads to greater propensity to get exhausted and burnt out more quickly, and the same dopamine seeking, meaning on average they may be more inclined to let their kids have free reign of screens to give them a break.

And of course there's hundreds of other factors and variables. Single parent households would have similar issues with burn out, plus just needing to keep kids occupied while you cook, do laundry, etc. That (and higher likelihood of poverty on a single income) could incentivize more reliance on microwavable dinners and fast food, adding the possibility that less than ideal nutrition could play a part.

Also: is it an abundance of screen time in particular, or rather a lack of human connection and communication? Would it make a difference if their screen time was replaced with reading books or playing with toys, as long as they still have the same lack of human interaction? And what if the screentime includes human interaction such as playing a multiplayer video game or watching and discussing shows with siblings or friends?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe that there's no causation there at all. There likely is. I just think describing it in terms of a simple straightforward narrative isn't wise. Realistically it's more of a complex intersecting network of factors and feedback loops.

63

EFisImportant t1_j7apl5u wrote

Obviously there is a lot they could be going on, but studies like that are an opening for further research. Researchers will never be able to do a RCT with the amount of TV, but it’s an interesting starting point to determine what causes some of these EF issues. By kindergarten, there are already gaps in EF based on SES. I haven’t read this study, but could tv time mediate the relation between SES and EF?

If so, now we can start to come up with interventions to see if that has any affect. Basically all childhood studies on development at not RCT bc it would be unethical to make kids do things they could mess with their development, but good studies can start to enlighten us and open doors to further studies.

7

TarthenalToblakai t1_j7az5cg wrote

Oh yeah, I've no qualms with the study itself. It effectively acknowledges what I've said here, and uses the word "is associated with" as opposed to "may lead to".

As per usual, the problem is less with the study itself and more with how (in this case social) media headlines misconstrue it to put forward a simplified "pop science" narrative.

5

MaxParedes t1_j7fxkyu wrote

Yes, a couple important passages from the study that dovetail with what you're saying:

However, the findings from this cohort study do not prove causation. Screen time likely represents a measurable contextual characteristic of a family or a proxy for the quality of parent-child interaction.

and:

Screen time at 12 months of age was reported by parents and not an objective measure. At that point, precise recording of screen use via moment-to-moment capture and machine learning, now referred to as screenome, was still in development. Time spent on each type of electronic device was also not collected. In 2010, handheld devices were beginning to surface in Singapore, and 97% of families were using television alone as the main source of screen time.

Along with the correlation/causation question, the use of self-reporting does seems like another reason for caution with the results. I wonder if there's data on whether parents accurately report things like this (especially sleep-deprived parents of infants!).

4

msjammies73 t1_j7jhgmf wrote

This shouldn’t be underestimated. My son has ADHD and another neurologic condition that comes with poor executive function and impulse control.

He absolutely loves screens. Even when he was a tiny baby if I put the tv on to watch some thing he would crank his head around to try to watch. I’ve always been careful about screen time because I was worried about how drawn he was to it. But the temptation to use it is always there.

2

corcyra t1_j7bbocf wrote

Might the rapid and fairly rhythmic rate at which images on-screen change have something to do with it? IRL, what we see doesn't move the same way or at the same rate a filmed or cartoon narrative does - think of how long it seems if a filmed scene focuses on one thing for more than a few seconds. If neural entrainment at such a rhythm and rate takes place too often at a young age, might it not lead to permanent neurological effects?

1

Wagamaga OP t1_j77h4xf wrote

If you’re a parent, you’ve probably been there. You have a baby howling for attention, but you need to cook dinner or get a sibling to take a much-needed nap. Baby TV shows, touch tablets, and digital phone toys can feel like lifesavers in keeping an active infant calm and contained while juggling what life brings.

But a new study suggests that too much screen time during infancy may lead to changes in brain activity, as well as problems with executive functioning — the ability to stay focused and control impulses, behaviors, and emotions — in elementary school.

“The infant brain thrives on enriching interactions with the environment, and excessive infant screen time can reduce opportunities for real-world interactions that are important for brain development,” says Dr. Carol Wilkinson, a developmental behavioral pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital who was part of the study. “Especially today, when screens are with us all the time, we need to better support parents in non-screen time tips and tricks to keep infants engaged and parents sane.”

https://answers.childrenshospital.org/screen-time-infants/

46

JKUAN108 t1_j77rgp9 wrote

> “Especially today, when screens are with us all the time, we need to better support parents in non-screen time tips and tricks to keep infants engaged and parents sane.”

Thanks for including that quote. I doubt the researchers are trying to "shame" parents who put their infants in front of screens, but it seems like their overall goal is to support parents in ways that also help their children.

57

hezzaloops t1_j7aag18 wrote

This is what happens when nobody has a village to help raise the child.

39

Angerina_ t1_j7aoy5p wrote

Friend of mine has a kid who can run from mom to grandma to grandpa to uncle all day, every day. I have nobody else around. My toddler loves to watch videos of people doing artisanal or technical things, like repairing machines, baking, painting, building, making music etc. We watch it together, I explain what they do.

And then she runs to her toys and wants to play what she saw, taking her cars apart and screwing them back together or she wants to bake muffins or draw with my help.

I rarely leave her to watch something alone, we talk about everything, her daddy does the same once he's home from work.

No fuss when screens are off or getting turned off.

14

Odd-Sundae7874 t1_j78pjsn wrote

With my first we watched little to no tv. With two, we watch sooooo much more.

45

UnApprovedActivities t1_j7b0iku wrote

I think this way about all my parenting choices. Like, it was important to me that my child take naps in a very structured way, but then I was like.... what will I do with 2? and we loosened up some. Still take naps but no longer work about laying down at the exact same time and place every day.

Edit it have us back a lot of freedom and it's way less stressful.

10

Lucky_Pyro t1_j7bpv8w wrote

And the second is just there... we have two youngins and the first is watching their shows, the second has to... can't really keep them separated

3

Independent-Soil5265 t1_j77x6zy wrote

Everyone commenting on this is looking at a screen

35

jayhasbigvballs t1_j78jybe wrote

I guess I’ll add the first scientific comment here. Man, r/science rapidly devolving.

Major issue with this study is the lack of adjustment for family factors which may increase the need/desire for screen time to be higher. These are especially important factors when looking at behavioural issues associated with “focus”.

23

captsubasa25 t1_j8g1hqh wrote

100%. Though the study did acknowledge that screen time could be a proxy for some of these family characteristics. This means it's more nuanced though, and requires someone to embrace uncertainty. "Screen time bad" and controlling screen time is a simpler narrative for the masses.

1

bomemachi t1_j783k6c wrote

I'm just going to say my kids watched a lot of PBS before elementary school and have none of these issues. They are all wonderful, kind students who appreciate school, learning, and respect their classmates. I expect there is more to be this story than a simple screen time correlation.

21

oasiscat t1_j78qtjt wrote

I remember reading something a while back that said baby shows like Cocomelon are designed to be overstimulating so that the baby can't process anything else going on around it. That way parents get some breathing time etc, but overstimulation for long periods for infants can be like a drug where they need more and more to feel normal.

If any screen time is to be had for infants, it should always be interactive, not overstimulating to the point that they go still.

19

EnjoyLifeorDieTryin t1_j7c6tca wrote

Is it designed to be overstimulating? Or perhaps they designed it stimulating enough to keep the attention a human with very very little attention span. To be honest it would not be a successful baby show if it did not draw their attention or interest, its more so about moderating how much they watch

1

PartyPorpoise t1_j794al2 wrote

Any correlation isn’t going to affect every child equally. But there are going to be other factors taken into account too. Did your kids have opportunities for enrichment outside of screentime? And maybe the content itself matters too. PBS probably does less damage than something fast-paced and mindless.

3

[deleted] t1_j792vbn wrote

[deleted]

20

zeebette t1_j7a5ptm wrote

They wanted to give my 4 year old an iPad in TK. An iPad to a 4 year old for school to take home. Absolutely not. Use it at school or whatever but she is not bringing that home.

I can only surmise that they, teachers and school districts, are giving children these devices in class to be used in a similar way that parents are using them, but using the word “educational” in front of the words “games” and “videos” to justify their use. But let’s only blame and shame parents and make no mention of that at all.

Not saying that this study was doing that- they actually seemed to recognize the value of screen time to parents, but a lot of the discussion around this topic in general comes off as very judgmental. I got 4 young kids and no gated off outside space. Come at me with solutions for evening time.

4

DamonFields t1_j7833hj wrote

Getting an early start on the brain damage. How profitable.

7

satriales856 t1_j7asrl0 wrote

Nah just keep parking them in the corner with tablets.

If you’ve seen kids raised like this, you know they are not right.

7

GGG_Eflat t1_j79n1p7 wrote

This is interesting, but not surprising.

I just wrote a paper (for a class, not publication) summarizing research that showed one of the largest predictors for specific learning disabilities is if the child watches an average of 4 or more hours of daily screen time in their toddler and preschool years.

5

Dumguy1214 t1_j7aipm1 wrote

I saw a guy on tv the other day and he talked about walking into a school and it was dead silent with the kids holding there phones like heroin addicts

he then walked into a school that had banned phones, kids talking and screaming, playing around

I am 43, I use my phone to call and play music

3

livipup t1_j77o088 wrote

Oh, a streamer I watch was talking about this during his livestream yesterday. Hopefully more people take note of it before becoming parents

3

khamelean t1_j78uqgv wrote

So ADHD infants grow in to ADHD children. Not really seeing a causative effect of screen time here…

3

TarthenalToblakai t1_j79itya wrote

Yeah this could very well be more of correlation than causation. I'd wager it's, in a way, both -- a complex intersecting network of factors and feedback loops. As I described in more detail in my other comment on this thread.

But yeah, any straightforward simple causative narratives should be met with critical analysis and skepticism. If there's one lesson to learn from science it's that matters are rarely that simple.

2

SharpHoodie420 t1_j7akar3 wrote

tbh I just agree, after I my phone died( not charging anymore) I am 10+ days without phone and its like having a piece in my mind and I am also more in present and when I see everybody on their breaks( age doesn't matter) all of them are looking and. scrolling reels on instagram or something else and its weird

3

Lazrath t1_j7b473p wrote

i can see checking things on the phone during break if no one else is around. what i can't understand is people not even being able to walk from one place to another without having their eyes glued to their phone, even on stairs.

2

TyroneLeinster t1_j7ara10 wrote

Infants are entertained by looking at the ceiling, what possible purpose would it serve to have them watch tv?

3

Ok-Beautiful-8403 t1_j7bpft1 wrote

its more the parents are watching tv and the babies happen to be there

2

TyroneLeinster t1_j7brnml wrote

Are you sure? Babies tend to look around at random, at people, or at the ceiling if laying down. This sounds like it is referring to parents deliberately making their baby consume television

3

Howdydobe t1_j7awvdt wrote

Social media is causing ADHD, confirmed.

3

TheRealBlerb t1_j7b657m wrote

Anecdotally valid. I was placed in a bouncy chair and watched The Wiggles, Thomas the Tank Engine, and other such shows when I was an infant. My attention, emotions, and self-control are almost nonexistent, I never did any drugs until I was 18, and I’ve been evaluated in many ways that have proven I don’t have any mental disorders (ADHD and the like).

Glided through school due to intelligence and benefits it has that apply to the rote school system, but my executive functioning is just about as good as it was when I was a kid (early 20’s now).

2

AutoModerator t1_j77gzgr wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Takeyouonajourney9 t1_j79t47v wrote

Anyone else find this study kind of fishy.. how well behaved exactly are kindergarteners expected to be?

1

GummyTee t1_j7a3knr wrote

I wonder how they can attribute that sort of complex behavior to watching TV as a young child. Really there were no other possible factors just too much tv.

1

trez00d t1_j7ap2vc wrote

man good thing all i did was browse on my computer when i was in elementary on my time off!

1

ckochan t1_j7b1v07 wrote

Great. I know a lot of parents that just shove an iPad in their kids’ face anytime they want mom/dad’s attention.

1

boundbybijou t1_j7bh183 wrote

I heard it helps with imagination & creating story makers.

1

zomanda t1_j7bu3oa wrote

What's executive functioning?

1

fuckkcross t1_j7bx7yr wrote

Soooo I think I’m the only on that thought “sunscreen,” when I saw “screen time,” and then got worried for myself, since I was a kid that played outside and on the beach a lot. Then coming to the comments, I realized my error. Don’t worry folks, I’m not procreating haha

1

Cancerslug t1_j7bz0tr wrote

I have severely debilitating ADHD. You do not want your kids having fucked up executive funcion or attention issues.

1

ColonelSpacePirate t1_j8dsr3j wrote

Is there a definition for screen time ?? Does this include words on an screen or simple flashing lights ? Or is it just watching content/movies ?

1

Rememberancy t1_j8fvtct wrote

Does anyone know about any study on the effects of this infants listening to tv as opposed watching it?

1

canishare t1_j8i32sz wrote

My son was born right before the World Cup and we watched every single game for the whole tournament. We still passively watch a lot of sports on tv (tv is on but we’re not actively watching). I assume this counts as screen time and now I feel really bad i

1

hellfae t1_j77lcnn wrote

It blows my mind that anyone would put a newly born, vulnerable, developing brain in front of a computer/tablet/tv or anything. Stop having kids if you arent able to put in any conscious time or stay off of screens yourselves. We dont even know the long term consequences of this, we do have more mental health issues, and more violence, shootings and impulse problems in young adults these days.

−17

[deleted] t1_j77mjxf wrote

Non-parent I'm guessing?

Obviously no one is advocating sticking a new born in front of a screen for hours, but if you judge any non-zero amount of screen time for an 18 month old as being so bad that people just shouldn't have children, then you obviously no idea what parenting is like.

edit: Here is an example: I needed to take my 1 year old for a blood test recently and he was very upset as he knows that they are painful. He can't be reasoned with because he doesn't talk yet. I can either completely pin him down to allow blood to be forcibly taken, or put some peppa pig on for 5 mins to calm him and allow the phlebotomist to work. Which do you think is less harmful?

17

healthierlurker t1_j79qqz1 wrote

I’m a parent. 5 minutes to get a shot? Sure. But my sons aren’t watching shows until at least 2 and then maybe that will be for 45 minutes a day. My brother’s son isn’t even allowed to look at screens. 1 is too young for TV absent a good reason like a medical procedure.

0

cinnam00n7 t1_j77y4dj wrote

There’s nothing wrong with distracting a kid with 5 minutes of screen time at a doctor. OP was most likely referring to parents who constantly rely on screen time to distract their kids bc they don’t have the energy or care to interact with them. Your “non-parent” comment followed by your bad example could imply you are an inadequate parent as you gave such a unique example that happens rarely. I hope you aren’t, but just saying. Kids more than ever are being handed electronic devices because their parents DO NOT have the energy to work full time and raise them “properly”. It is a fault of the system and not on parents. HOWEVER if you are going to be a parent and you know money or time is going to be short you need to be responsible and proactive in deciding when and how many kids to have if any at all. It is becoming increasingly common to see toddlers with ipads at a restaurant completely disengaged with the rest of the family, and most often thats exactly how they are at home too.

−5

khamelean t1_j78v1nw wrote

More violence??? Are you a crazy person? Youth violence is at an all time low, and has been going down consistently for several decades.

4

JoshuaACNewman t1_j78266c wrote

What momentary increases there have been in violence among the general constant downtrend of violence as Boomers age out is directly attributable to gun access.

2

[deleted] t1_j77mmee wrote

Todays children will be absolute nightmares as adults. Gen z as a whole can be pretty questionable. But I am quite nervous for when kids born after 2010 start entering the workforce.

−17

TEDDYMONSTER2 t1_j77zfxz wrote

Said every generation ever. Society didn’t collapse when the boomers entered the workforce, and it won’t when the zoomers enter it.

22

[deleted] t1_j780ntu wrote

I’m not saying it will collapse, but the age of information has allowed people to become shockingly dumb and lacking in critical thinking. I can’t tell you how many gen z people have been hired at my job in entry level roles that have just piss poor performance and motivation. I’m like I get it, the world sucks, the economy is built against you. But we hired a previously retired guy for the same role and he is running circles around literally kids less than half his age. It’s so infuriating when people just don’t care. I say this as a millennial, I’m not some boomer saying nobody wants to work. We pay a good wage, good benefits, good insurance and there’s plenty of room for advancement for go getters. But literally every single gen z has either quit or just does bare minimum and sits on their phones.

−6

mypantsareonmyhead t1_j79018i wrote

>but the age of information has allowed people to become shockingly dumb and lacking in critical thinking

Welcome to humanity. What you describe is common to humans since the dawn of our time.

Stop deluding yourself that Grampa's generation were socially aware, open minded, curious, intelligent, balanced, or in any way different to us. They weren't.

6

[deleted] t1_j790me1 wrote

Oh I don’t think they where at all. One of my favorite quotes is from George Carlin “think about how dumb the average person is, then realize that half of all people are dumber than that guy” I would wager though that grampas generation garnered much more street smarts and basic understandings of the world than the current youth. But I won’t argue that they where more intelligent by any means. We’re smarter today than humans have ever been. But like you said. That’s kind of a constant in humanity, of course we’re smarter now.

0

JoshuaACNewman t1_j7820sb wrote

My friend, that is the direct (and knock-on) result of Bush’s No Child Left Behind program for defunding schools and its prioritization of education metrics over education.

4

FlatteringFlatuance t1_j78qnly wrote

Why is the previously retired guy at the job, and do you think he has plans to continue the advancement that you say there is plenty of room for? Also you start your comment about stupidity and critical thinking and then go right into something completely different, motivation. Give us a time frame of how long a typical gen z employee lasts and how long senor senior has been there. How long does it take to get considered for advancement or a pay raise? Also the type of job is important as well since a lot of Gen Z are either starting college at this point (so not looking to make a career out of a job right now) or are disenfranchised about life because there is seemingly no way to support themselves no matter how hard they work considering the price of things (and especially housing) has gone through the roof. If he came out of retirement just to fill his time rather than as a means to an end it’s much more likely he is going to enjoy his job. He probably owns a house or has half the cost of rent in a mortgage.

2