No TV for children under 2, urge doctors • Hacker News Board

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#131

Post by colomon » Wed, Oct 19, 2011, 2:05 PM UTC

Ryanmf wrote: post #54

ajross wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

For what it's worth (and obviously it's just a single informal anecdote), there was a song my wife and I sang quite a bit while she was 6-9 months pregnant. It was pure magic after he was born -- singing it could reliably make him instantly stop crying during the first year of his life. Admittedly I don't remember when the first time we tried singing it to him after he was born, it probably was at least a couple of weeks. And yes, singing other songs generally did not have that effect.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#132

Post by vidarh » Wed, Oct 19, 2011, 5:29 PM UTC

gahahaha wrote: post #129

vidarh wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If the kids are otherwise healthy and eat a lot of the medicines, then yes, obviously. Eating a lot of medicines is OBVIOUSLY very bad for healthy children.

You're moving the goalpost and being intentionally obtuse.

Vaccines then. Clothes. Shoes.

Want more examples of "unnatural" things?

The point is to equate something being "unnatural", whatever that is supposed to mean, with it being "OBVIOUSLY bad" is so inane that I really do hope you're either a troll or just plain did not think through what you wrote.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#133

Post by dantheman » Wed, Oct 19, 2011, 6:13 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #132

gahahaha wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the kids are otherwise healthy and eat a lot of the medicines, then yes, obviously. Eating a lot of medicines is OBVIOUSLY very bad for healthy children.

You're moving the goalpost and being intentionally obtuse. Vaccines then. Clothes. Shoes. Want more examples of "unnatural" things? The point is to equate something being "unnatural", whatever that is supposed to mean, with it being "OBVIOUSLY bad" is so inane that I really do hope you're either a troll or just plain did not think through what you wrote.

Really, what's more unnatural than reading words on a page or manipulating figures.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#134

Post by dbbo » Wed, Oct 19, 2011, 7:01 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #107

dbbo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is looking at an image of live human beings "worse" than looking at live human beings (which is ultimately an image too)? If the child is given a remote control, does that count as interactivity since he can choose what to look at while exploring causality? By the way, I'm not arguing that TV is good for kids. I'm just trying to analyze the argument in favor of preventing infants from watching passive screen medi…

If you try going to see some live theatre in person, I think you'll understand the difference between it and television.

I understand that they are different. I wanted to know why one is worse for child development.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#135

Post by periferral » Wed, Oct 19, 2011, 8:12 PM UTC

mark242 wrote: post #24

periferral wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can see how my message would mean that, since I wanted my point to be brief.

I spend a lot of time reading to my kids and playing with them. I've seen how much they pick up that way. However, I haven't come across a book or way to hold my 2 yr old's attention to get them to learn ABCs and their sounds. She loves to read and see pictures and point at things but she isn't learning letters that way.

She watches about 15-20 mins of Leapfrog: Letter Factory and I was amazed how quickly she started recognizing her letters.

I'm not suggesting TV is a replacement to reading but rather than another medium of learning is a tool that can be leveraged.

Also my point was more towards the article headline (less so the content) in general where a blanket statement like 'watching TV = bad for infants'. Rather we should find a balance between reading, music, outside play and even TV.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#136

Post by camilless » Wed, Oct 19, 2011, 10:09 PM UTC

When I was a student, I definitely let my son watch too much television (now he has ADHD - not sure if they're related - but from studies it sounds like they're connected). It was a babysitting tool and I couldn't afford daycare in the evening as well when I had to study. Now, we have a nanny and our kids hardly watch tv at all. Our baby seems to be drawn to the iPad and iPhones and we're keeping these away from her. We're smarter and definitely not student 'poor' anymore and this has definitely affected how much tv our other kids watch.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#137

Post by jtheory » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 1:23 AM UTC

Tloewald wrote: post #128

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…

The researchers make claims like the kids watching tv have no idea what's going on. My kids would play Angry Birds and rearrange our iPhone icons to make their favorite apps more accessible. (They could also explain some of what was going on in tv shows they liked.) Maybe these researchers are Skinnerian behaviorists who think the kids are just exhibiting behavior.

Not "kids". Kids under two. Here's the sentence you're quoting:

Unlike school-age children, infants and toddlers “just have no idea what’s going on” no matter how well done a video is, Dr. Troseth said.

How old are your kids?

The article also mentions specifically that once kids are over 3, they can learn from some TV -- Sesame Street specifically has been the subject of lots of studies, and shows some benefits, though it still can't compare with learning from actual people.

That's the main takeaway -- for kids under 2, it's actively harmful; for kids over two, it's not as bad, but kids will still be better off if it's possible to spend those hours interacting with people or playing (by themselves, with others, anything).

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#138

Post by jtheory » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:33 AM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #61

transburgh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I completely agree with you, the one thing I question about the restaurant tv example is, does the child zone into the tv because it is something they rarely experience and provides changing imagery that catches their eye? Again, I don't disagree with the overall point, I just wonder if their interest that you are experiencing is due to the intrigue of something new and not necessary zoning out just because it…

If I'm in a restaurant and there is a TV in my field of view, my eyes are continually drawn to it. It's the nature of the bright, changing image.

I have the same experience. Even if the TV seems to be tuned to an "ads-only" channel, or some sporting event that holds utterly no interest to me, it captures my attention repeatedly.

It's like the visual equivalent of a mosquito buzzing by my ear; not at all desirable, but extremely difficult to tune out.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#139

Post by ToastOpt » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 4:56 AM UTC

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #76

maratd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Having it so your baby can ask for milk long before they get upset or too hungry is great, having them tell you that they're finished eating is much better than having them just throw food on the ground ;) Babies are cognitively capable of communicating they just haven't developed the skills for speech yet.

This! We started baby sign and could communicate these basics with our daughter before she was a year old. It might not sound like much to start communicating 6 months earlier, but I can only describe it thusly: awesome.

Re: No TV for children under 2, urge doctors

#140

Post by gahahaha » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 5:01 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #132

gahahaha wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the kids are otherwise healthy and eat a lot of the medicines, then yes, obviously. Eating a lot of medicines is OBVIOUSLY very bad for healthy children.

You're moving the goalpost and being intentionally obtuse. Vaccines then. Clothes. Shoes. Want more examples of "unnatural" things? The point is to equate something being "unnatural", whatever that is supposed to mean, with it being "OBVIOUSLY bad" is so inane that I really do hope you're either a troll or just plain did not think through what you wrote.

'"unnatural", whatever that is supposed to mean'

It is supposed to mean huge changes from the relatively stable environment present during human evolution. The environment we are adapted to operating in. Unless you are a creationist, that should be pretty obvious.