31–40 of 119 posts
Science reporting does itself a massive disservice publishing headlines like this, especially when the real takeaway is just "MRIs cannot see the damage done to children's brains with screens". Even other children know that the "ipad kids" are different and damaged in some way, my young cousin and his friends call them bots.
Dubious at best. If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. And screen time is as addictive to children as it is to adults, and we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.
I have children and the relationship is much more complicated with them. There is a danger in overgeneralization from anecdotal evidence.
> we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.
Strange line to use dismissing research into that exact topic.
Dubious at best. If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. And screen time is as addictive to children as it is to adults, and we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.
Dubious at best. If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. And screen time is as addictive to children as it is to adults, and we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.
No peer-reviewed paper that parachutes help make sky-diving safer either. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/
Dubious at best. If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. And screen time is as addictive to children as it is to adults, and we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.
I have children and do not notice this. What you want to be true isn’t necessarily universal.
But if it affects enough of them then it's a problem worth looking into.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously not true, or does not fit your biased priors?
It's actually reasonable for people to build theories about the world around them by carefully observing the environment around them.
Which is the problem addressed by the development of the scientific method.
Science reporting does itself a massive disservice publishing headlines like this, especially when the real takeaway is just "MRIs cannot see the damage done to children's brains with screens". Even other children know that the "ipad kids" are different and damaged in some way, my young cousin and his friends call them bots.
Because (subjectively) I can see how children with lots of screen-time have a harder time with activities which do not lead to immediate dopamine release, like reading, listening to a story, drawing, etc., while children with low/no screen-time can derive satisfaction already from the process of doing something.
--
Edit: I'd say none of this impacts "brain function or well-being" directly, as both CAN do tasks without instant gratification, it's just that children with lots of screen-time perceive them vastly different from my personal observation.
I feel it’s obvious in some respect that if “screen time” means TikTok or YouTube binging then there’s probably something more developmentally useful you could be doing. That screen time might lead to a maladaptive brain as evidence by MRI, strikes me as an extreme effect. I’d be curious to know what else this experimental design had been applied to in the past and whether it’s at all commensurate with this purpose.
I noticed a very different result, when I consciously watched some selected videos together with my boy vs. setting him loose with a smartphone in his hand.