Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 141 posts

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#11

Post by munin »

mark242 wrote: post #10
rada wrote: post #7

My one and a half year old learned the alphabet by watching a cartoon several times. I think there is a healthy balance to be found somewhere between 24/7 and zero.

The point of the study isn't that kids can't learn from the TV-- of course they can-- but that they'll be _better_ at learning when it's you talking to them, or reading them a book, or playing, or something that's more interactive. We have a four year old who we've tried to limit watching TV, because you can see a noticeable difference in demeanor and attitude when the TV is on versus when playing by themselves or wi…

why does there have to be some TV time?

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#14

Post by scott_s »

jsherry wrote: post #8

I'm not here to promote the idea of children under 2 should watch TV, but statements like this largely invalidate studies such as this: "The pediatrics group’s guidelines point out that research to date suggests a “correlation between television viewing and developmental problems, but they cannot show causality.”"

This is not a study, but guidelines. And I think it's a reasonable guideline because it's a warning. It means, "We cannot show causation between the two, but we also can't rule it out based on the evidence. The data we have and our understanding of how humans develop during infancy leads us to conclude it is safer to avoid letting children under 2 watch tv."

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#15

Post by Jem »

rada wrote: post #7

My one and a half year old learned the alphabet by watching a cartoon several times. I think there is a healthy balance to be found somewhere between 24/7 and zero.

And by the time my toddler was 18 months she could count to 16, but we don't watch TV. Your kid may have done that anyway if provided the same stimulation by other means. It's not a reason in itself to watch TV.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#17

Post by Ryanmf »

If it hadn't been for watching Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow at that age (c.1988), I wouldn't have been able to participate in the mind bending parlor trick wherein my father handed his two year old son a box of cereal, and I promptly sounded out Maltodextrin (or whatever else).

(And if I hadn't been that two year old, it's unlikely I'd be the voracious reader and passionate lexidweeb I am now. In fact, it's unlikely I'd even have the same brain, so to speak.)

Now, my parents reading to me most every night (apparently even when I was in the womb) also had a tremendous effect, but when I was a kid my dad traveled for work upwards of 300 days a year. And my mom had to take care of everything else. So there wasn't always someone available to read to me, but Big Bird and Geordi LaForge were there every morning.

Just sayin'.

(If the point of that article wasn't "no TV under 2" but "no bullshit TV under 2," I agree, but I would ammend the statement to "no bullshit TV under 200," or simply "no bullshit.")

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#18

Post by OpenAmazing »

My wife use to be a social worker.

It is incredibly sad how many children are put in front of a TV all day. And not Sesame Street or even cartoons - but Soap Operas, Jerry Springer, Cops, Fox News etc. Picture a dirty trailer home, behind on rent, no job, fast food for every meal and a rented 52-inch rear-projection TV that is on all. the. time.

When health care professionals make statements like this, the bad parents are who they are picturing in their head. They know the good parents (like the ones that read HN) can make informed decisions for themselves. But the bad parents have to be told "absolutely no TV" because there is no concept of moderation.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#19

Post by lwhi »

Ryanmf wrote: post #17

If it hadn't been for watching Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow at that age (c.1988), I wouldn't have been able to participate in the mind bending parlor trick wherein my father handed his two year old son a box of cereal, and I promptly sounded out Maltodextrin (or whatever else). (And if I hadn't been that two year old, it's unlikely I'd be the voracious reader and passionate lexidweeb I am now. In fact, it's unli…

.. and I probably wouldn't know the alphabet ;)

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#20

Post by periferral »

Jem wrote: post #15
rada wrote: post #7

My one and a half year old learned the alphabet by watching a cartoon several times. I think there is a healthy balance to be found somewhere between 24/7 and zero.

And by the time my toddler was 18 months she could count to 16, but we don't watch TV. Your kid may have done that anyway if provided the same stimulation by other means. It's not a reason in itself to watch TV.

And its not a reason to not. If the kids can pick up ABCs/Numbers while watching 1/2 hr of TV or 1/2 hr of you working hands on with them, doesn't change anything. So advocating no TV is a poor reason in this particular case. I think we all agree there is a healthy balance to be met.
Post reply on HN