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

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#51

Post by dolinsky »

My son is 21 months and we have never sat him down in front of a TV with the express purpose being education (so no Baby Einstein DVDs...what a joke) nor babysitting (passive viewing of a cartoon). He has been exposed to my iPad, my wife's iTouch and both of our phones, and Cablevision provides a 'Kids Music Channel' which plays a variety of kid-friendly music while cycling through a dozen or so static images including ballons, a rubber duck in water, and a car.

The only line in that article that I take issue with is the following: Even so-called educational videos do not benefit children under 2 because they are too young to be able to understand the images on the screen, the doctors’ group said.

Maybe it's because we read to my son daily and have incorporated teaching him sign language from the time he was 4 months, but he most definitely can recognize the images on the screen and frequently both speaks and signs the correct image on the screen (balloon, duck, dog, car). If we had never done any of these activities with him then I highly doubt he would be able to recognize the images on the TV, and there might be a distinction between understanding and recognizing that I am not making, but he most definitely is displaying some sort of connection between the images on the TV and the books/drawings/in person experiences he has.

I think the key take away from this, or other studies of its kind, is that passive media should not be the influential experience that a child so young should be exposed to.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#52

Post by grandalf »

I think that if you're ignoring your kid and watching a lot of TV the problem is that you're ignoring your kid.

If you're watching more than about an hour of TV per day as a new parent then you either have a staff of people caring for your kid or you're slacking off.

If you don't converse with the child's other parent or others in the household b/c the TV is the center of everyone's attention, then you have a relationship problem or dysfunctional family situation.

This anti-TV meme is mostly luddite fearmongering intended to get joe and jane sixpack to stop vegging out in front of the TV and start being engaged as parents.

Sure, having disengaged parents or parents that don't interact verbally will create an impoverished environment for a kid, but it's not the fault of the glowing box anymore than it would be the fault of the chess board if the parents gazed silently at the board for hours at a time and ignored the little one.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#53

Post by 0x12 »

No TV is so 1990. Really, today 'No TV' would be easy to achieve while still overdosing on Youtube, netflix and so on.

Computers screens are more often than not the delivery vector for your daily dose of passive consumption. And it's not just the desktop machines either, it's the iPads and the phones that happily join in.

Even not having a TV no longer means that you are immunized against this, and being without internet access is far worse than not having cable.

For one the internet is far more addictive in many ways (think minecraft, the various role playing games and social websites) and besides that it has so many legitimate uses that one could easily burn up a whole day without ever leaving the comfy chair in front of the big tft in consumptive mode without so much as a glance at the television.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#54

Post by Ryanmf »

ajross wrote: post #34
Ryanmf wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we're being pedantic: 1. The first word I ever sounded out on my own (at least in an adult's presence) was "Mobil"—from the sign above the gas station near our home in Glendale, CA. ( Très Américain, non? ) For all I know this was before I turned two. 2. Most of the "embellished" stories regarding my memorable reading tricks come from family members who joined us on a trip to Lake Tahoe in the winter of 88…

I'm not intending insult your status as a prodigy. I'm just cautioning that you aren't interpreting the recommendation properly. One data point doesn't do much to disprove the existing studies that show a clear anticorrelation between speech development and screen time. Basically, you're saying essentially that parents should ignore clear science and let their kids watch ("non-bullshit") TV because you know a kid who…

Ugh—glad I'm in no way responsible for a potentially interesting discussion devolving into Yet Another Internet Dickwaving Match. Thanks for the downvotes, btw. /s

If you want to interpret my decision to describe my admittedly statistically insignificant experience (which is directly related to the topic at hand) as an attempt to flaunt any sort of status, that's your own business.

It isn't really your business to reinterpret the details of my personal life incorrectly to support your argument.

I'm not "saying essentially" that parents (in particular the parents reading this right now) "should" do anything. As has already been addressed in the comments:

1. HN readers (parents or not) are not the target for this recommendation. (What else is new?) 2. Bad parents, or those who are inclined to make bad decisions as parents, might benefit more from advice along the lines of "You stop watching TV, and please get your shit together; alternately, don't have kids," rather than "No TV under n." 3. It's highly likely that the recommendations are intentionally rigid in order to have the strongest impact on those potentially bad parents.

As it pertains to the messaging surrounding the AAP guidelines as reported by the NYT, a lot of it comes across as FUD, to me. For instance, "Secondhand TV" is just a ridiculous thing to say.

Again, I'm not telling anyone do do anything. I am saying that while I don't intend to ignore this study, it's also far from the only data point I'll be taking into consideration as I conduct my own life.

As it turns out, I'm usually the guy mocking people for disregarding science in favor of catchy anecdotal "evidence," "conventional wisdom," or semi-plausible, hippy-dippy alternatives. If my hypothetical future wife wants to play Baby Einstein or Mozart through her uterine wall for our hypothetical future fetus/infant, I'm going to have some questions about why we're doing that, or at least why we're not playing Ryuichi Sakamoto or The Doors instead.

I would find plopping my (fingers crossed) future child down in front of a TV for extended periods unacceptable, regardless of what's playing. I also have some experience which indicates that not all screen viewing is detrimental, and I'll be taking that into account, whether or not it's a statistically defensible position.

Ultimately, I'd hand an iPad (another one of those dangerous screens) running NodeBeat to my one-year-old without a second's hesitation, and I don't really give a shit what the AAP has to say about that.

(edit: Okay, maybe at least a second's hesitation, but moreso for the physical safety of the child and the iPad, not due to concerns about hindering the development of the child's mind. The development of the child's mind is exactly why I would want him/her playing with NodeBeat, etc.)

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#55

Post by ilmare »

My kids were on tv-diet for about 5 years and it was overall very positive experience. There're several things here:

a. TV (and other one-way information sources) is really bad for babies/toddlers who need two-way interaction with the world.

b. for older kids(~4y+) replacing regular TV channels with dedicated documentary/learning videos in reasonable quantities is beneficial.

I'm quite curious on how virtual interactions(ipad/etc) affect child development, any research links?

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#56

Post by derekprior »

ajross wrote: post #23
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 learn…

"it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't ... learning how to communiate (sic)"

Does sign language count as communication? Because my son learns signs from occasional DVD watching and then applies them in the proper contexts - sometimes without any reinforcement from his parents or anyone else.

Pretty sure that qualifies as learning how to communicate.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#57

Post by Jun8 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #45
Jun8 wrote: post #41

I don't think that watching TV is categorically bad, i.e. the content and the amount is important. I think when pediatricians make this recommendation they mean "a totally attentive parent vs. regular TV programming", which, of course is not always the case. Watching an educational program, e.g. Barney or Sesame Street, etc. may be much better than sitting in a room with an inattentive (e.g. reading the paper) parent…

"I don't think that watching TV is categorically bad, i.e. the content and the amount is important." That's just plain false. The content does matter between ages 3 and 5, but before age two the content is irrelevant because of the video deficit.

Well, what I meant was content in the sense that grown-up material and commercials. I don't think watching news on TV with your one year old will have the same effect as watching Barney.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#58

Post by [deleted] »

Alex3917 wrote: post #48
nutmeg wrote: post #12

The article doesn't mention radio. Is Car Talk is going to harm my child or just make him laugh at his own jokes?

Yes, it will harm your child. Children can only pick up language by listening to people in the room, they can't pick up language by listening to the radio or watching videos. They also can't pick up language from people in the room very well if there is a radio or TV on in the background. No one is really sure why this is the case, but it is very well proven. (It's called the video deficit, even when you're just talk…

[deleted]

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#59

Post by maratd »

dolinsky wrote: post #51

My son is 21 months and we have never sat him down in front of a TV with the express purpose being education (so no Baby Einstein DVDs...what a joke) nor babysitting (passive viewing of a cartoon). He has been exposed to my iPad, my wife's iTouch and both of our phones, and Cablevision provides a 'Kids Music Channel' which plays a variety of kid-friendly music while cycling through a dozen or so static images includi…

> incorporated teaching him sign language from the time he was 4 months

If you don't mind elaborating on this, why did you teach him sign language?

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#60

Post by Alex3917 »

Jun8 wrote: post #57
Alex3917 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't think that watching TV is categorically bad, i.e. the content and the amount is important." That's just plain false. The content does matter between ages 3 and 5, but before age two the content is irrelevant because of the video deficit.

Well, what I meant was content in the sense that grown-up material and commercials. I don't think watching news on TV with your one year old will have the same effect as watching Barney.

"I don't think watching news on TV with your one year old will have the same effect as watching Barney."

The only thing that might make a difference is how many times the camera angle changes per minute, but other than that there shouldn't be any difference between content made for adults and content made for kids.

Post reply on HN