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

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#21

Post by dadkins »

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.”"

That doesn't invalidate the study at all. A correlation is still a very real statistical thing. It doesn't automatically imply causation, but it doesn't rule it out either. In fact, it's usually pretty good evidence in favor of causality. If this correlation shows up in enough studies without any alternative explanations, causality would become the prevailing theory. Dealing with human subjects and long term effects is difficult; controlled experiments are rarely an option.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#22

Post by mark242 »

munin wrote: post #11
mark242 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There doesn't have to be any-- the reality is that for a vast majority of parents, it's easy to slip and let your kid watch Yo Gabba Gabba for a half hour once every few days, just to catch the slightest break.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#23

Post by ajross »

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…

You're misreading the headline or misinterpreting your parents. When you were reading as a "two year old", they mean you were between your second and third birthday[1].

When the study says "No TV for infants under 2" they mean babies between birth and their second birthday. And the recommendation isn't about "bullshit" TV, it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't interacting with a human being and learning how to communiate. The studies correlating TV watching with delayed speech are very well supported.

[1] Obviously it's likely you were closer to three. And knowing now how parental memories can, heh, embellish things, I strongly suspect that most of your most memorable reading tricks happened when you were, in fact, three.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#24

Post by mark242 »

periferral wrote: post #20
Jem wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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."

I really hope you didn't just say that there's no difference in learning between talking with your kid, or having them zone out in front of the tv.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#25

Post by pwenzel »

My wife and I chose to adopt a "no screen time" policy for our child, who is presently 7 months old. Here are my observations so far:

1. At a restaurant with TVs, we've observed our child go from laughing and socially engaged, to completed zoned out and unaware of people in mere seconds, just because the television appeared in his field of view. :-(

2. At less than three months of age, he had a fit when pulled away from the television, under the watch of in-laws.

3. Both parents have iPhones, Macbooks, and have a tendency to flop in front of the TV (Roku, Hulu, Daily Show) in the evening. Our no screen time policy prevents us from gazing into our own screens without paying attention to the needs of our son.

4. Finally, most advertising is obnoxious and has no place in my home. Why expose our infant to it? He'll have the rest of his life to be accosted by ads.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#26

Post by lwhi »

Perhaps the most useful way of looking at this, is to think about whether a child who isn't exposed to TV until two years old would gain benefit, over children who are.

I agree with the premise that, being able to respond to feedback, and alter and hone their responses over time is a central part of any child's development. TV isn't as passive as some commentators make out - but the mechanisms required to process the sound and images we see in an interactive way require a degree of development that a very young child isn't likely to possess.

There's one thing that I am certain of; I think advertising aimed towards children should be banned. If there's any evil that could (and should) be stopped it's the drastic effect that commercial advertising can have on impressionable minds.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#30

Post by tnorthcutt »

dadkins wrote: post #21
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.”"

That doesn't invalidate the study at all. A correlation is still a very real statistical thing. It doesn't automatically imply causation, but it doesn't rule it out either. In fact, it's usually pretty good evidence in favor of causality. If this correlation shows up in enough studies without any alternative explanations, causality would become the prevailing theory. Dealing with human subjects and long term effects…

In fact, it's usually pretty good evidence in favor of causality.

What is that statement based on?

Post reply on HN