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

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#111

Post by MartinCron »

watmough wrote: post #109
watmough wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm acting to limit my daughter's exposure to TV, and this is a topic I'd like to make a more substantial post on, but until that happy moment, I'd just like to note that: "The real World often has a slight liberal bias..." edit: just sneaking a few minutes on HN while she watches Nihongo Quick Lesson on NHK (via Roku). Only a few shows actually really engage her, but this is one of them... She shouts and dances with…

It'd be really interesting to know who would mod this post down, and why?

Note, I didn't mod you down, but it was probably just the naked politics of it.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#112

Post by Tsagadai »

maximusprime wrote: post #85

People should not do studies into parenting. Parents should use their damn common sense. Everything in moderation.

There is no such thing as 'common sense'. Everyone learnt what they know. Genetics alone gives you a series of reflexes, some body changes and a few basic urges. Everything else was learnt somewhere, somehow and at some time. The only 'common' part is where you learn something or experience something in much the same way as someone else. We do not all share the same collective experiences.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#113

Post by Jem »

zmmmmm wrote: post #98
munin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why does there have to be some TV time?

I don't know if you have kids, but looking after them (some kids more than others) can be an utterly exhausting task that starts at dawn and doesn't end until 8:00pm. Television turns out to be something that can occupy some of the most hyperactive kids with minimal supervision. If you asked any worker "why does there have to be a lunch break" they'd look at you like you were insane. I think the same applies here.

If you think looking after kids ends at 8pm, I'd question whether or not YOU have any either ;)

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#114

Post by SoftwareMaven »

brudgers wrote: post #43
pwenzel wrote: post #25

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 f…

> "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." Advertising for products used by children has changed dramatically over the past few decades. Juliet Schor's book Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture documents the change and the strategies used. It is one of the most influential boo…

I have older kids. When we switched from regular TV to DVR, Netflix and iTunes (eg when we stopped watching commercials), their desire for inane stuff dropped significantly.

That alone makes paying for a series on iTunes worth it for me.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#115

Post by mapleoin »

Alex3917 wrote: post #46

Some statistics and information from the 2008 book Parenting, Inc.: "A nationally representative study from the 1990s found that only 17 percent of children under one were watching television and fewer than half of children between the ages of one and two watched. In a 2006 study of 1,009 parents, 40 percent of babies were watching TV or DVDs/videos by three months; the average baby started watching videos at six mon…

Surveys show that children six and under spend three times more time in front of a TV, computer, or video game each day than they do reading.

This comment is quite strange...

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#116

Post by gahahaha »

jellicle wrote: post #108
Alex3917 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's possible that the same thing is happening in this group of research as well." In this case we already know that the most important mediating variables for predicting outcomes on the relevant measures are parent-child talk and self-directed play, so it's very easy to see how each hour of watching TV causes increasing damage. I'm sure some of the gap is because of mere correlation, but it's also clear that TV wat…

But you're not grasping the point. Correlation is not causation. If parents are poor, work three jobs ("fantastic!", says George Bush), and don't have time to tutor their kids, their kids may watch more TV and may have lower test scores..... but there's absolutely no proof anywhere that TV "causes damage". None. Zero. Nil.

He wrote "I'm sure some of the gap is because of mere correlation", so I think he IS grasping the point.

Personally I thin it is OBVIOUS that TV is damaging children since it is unnatural the same way sugar is. The kids of our ancestors have been crawling around on the floor exploring and playing for millions of years - sitting in front of flickering lights for hours on end for just 30 years.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#117

Post by seclorum »

grandalf wrote: post #90
frossie wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. That is not what the Academy of Pediatrics is actually saying. They specifically say that you as the parent is not required to engage with your child the whole time - however if you are NOT engaged with them, you are still better having the TV off, because c…

But couldn't some programming be beneficial and some harmful? It just seems like quite an oversimplification to say that all TV is neutral or harmful to development. My kid is 15 months and we occasionally play "signing time" sign language training DVDs. She's learned a lot of spoken vocabulary from it, and appears to be in the 99th percentile for language development. She doesn't typically sign anything (except for…

Its called "television programming" for a reason.

Do you want to program your kids mind, or are you going to let someone else do it .. ?

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#118

Post by vidarh »

gahahaha wrote: post #116
jellicle wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're not grasping the point. Correlation is not causation. If parents are poor, work three jobs ("fantastic!", says George Bush), and don't have time to tutor their kids, their kids may watch more TV and may have lower test scores..... but there's absolutely no proof anywhere that TV "causes damage". None. Zero. Nil.

He wrote "I'm sure some of the gap is because of mere correlation", so I think he IS grasping the point. Personally I thin it is OBVIOUS that TV is damaging children since it is unnatural the same way sugar is. The kids of our ancestors have been crawling around on the floor exploring and playing for millions of years - sitting in front of flickering lights for hours on end for just 30 years.

A lot of medicines are "unnatural the same way sugar is". Are they obviously damaging children too?

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#119

Post by vidarh »

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…

> 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.

Yes, that line basically tells me that either these doctors don't have kids or they haven't been paying attention to them.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#120

Post by vidarh »

maratd wrote: post #59
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?

We didn't teach our son signs on purpose, but he picked up some by himself before he could speak.

For example, we would point at a bottle of milk to see if he wanted some, and he would soon start copying our gesture by holding up one hand as if a bottle placed upright, and pointing at it with his other hand. Soon he would do that whenever he wanted milk, before he got thirsty enough to start crying.

A lot less guesswork for us, and a lot less crying for him.

Post reply on HN