Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two-thirds of babies watch screens – some for eight hours a day

thetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Two-thirds of babies watch screens – some for eight hours a day

#71

Post by lotsofpulp »

sarchertech wrote: post #70
lotsofpulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always been suspect of AAP recommendations due to their stance on male genital mutilation. Their risk tolerances are clearly subject to political whims, although I guess I can't expect any better from a human organization. >And it inhibits learning because instead of doing what they’d normally do which is watch and listen to adults and older kids speaking they are glued to the screen. For example, is the AAP i…

I’m not going to get into debate on the ethicality of infant circumcision, but there are zero counties that have outlawed it, so there isn’t a jurisdiction on earth that considers it genital mutilation. As far as their risk tolerances go, ignoring ethical considerations their stance is that the medical benefits slightly outweigh the risks. The view of most European medical associations is that the risks slightly outw…

> so there isn’t a jurisdiction on earth that considers it genital mutilation.

It is a political fight not worth losing, hence no jurisdiction considers it genital mutilation. But the simplest evidence is that if it didn’t already exist, and someone were to propose it, they would be excommunicated from any community for suggesting unnecessary surgery on a baby.

> Do you have kids? Babies require constant adult supervision, so there should never be a time when they don’t have access to an adult.

Yes, I do.

> Is it possible that a parking a baby in front of a TV all day is better than parking a baby in front of a gray wall with no stimuli or interaction and letting them scream? Sure. But no one has that data, or ever will. And no medical agency anywhere in the world is going to issue advice like that.

These are irrelevant scenarios. The AAP says zero screen time. It seems like an arbitrarily restrictive suggestion when almost all kids grow up with more than zero screen time for many decades now. And almost all parents will let their kid under 2 have some screen time, so it leads to an assumption that the other AAP recommendations can be overly strict also.

Re: Two-thirds of babies watch screens – some for eight hours a day

#72

Post by sarchertech »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #71
sarchertech wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not going to get into debate on the ethicality of infant circumcision, but there are zero counties that have outlawed it, so there isn’t a jurisdiction on earth that considers it genital mutilation. As far as their risk tolerances go, ignoring ethical considerations their stance is that the medical benefits slightly outweigh the risks. The view of most European medical associations is that the risks slightly outw…

> so there isn’t a jurisdiction on earth that considers it genital mutilation. It is a political fight not worth losing, hence no jurisdiction considers it genital mutilation. But the simplest evidence is that if it didn’t already exist, and someone were to propose it, they would be excommunicated from any community for suggesting unnecessary surgery on a baby. > Do you have kids? Babies require constant adult superv…

> But the simplest evidence is that if it didn’t already exist, and someone were to propose it, they would be excommunicated from any community for suggesting unnecessary surgery on a baby.

But it does already exist. If ear piercing didn’t exist, people would think you were insane for having someone shove a wire through your kid’s ear. We do all kinds of weird things to our kids that aliens from another planet would fine insane without any cultural context.

Edit: turns out the AAP recently updated their policy

>Infants under 18 months learn best from real-world interactions. Heavy solo screen use can affect their developing language and social skills, for example. Outcomes depend on how many hours a day little ones spend on digital media and how adults use screens to calm or entertain them. But misuse of digital media can cause:

Re: Two-thirds of babies watch screens – some for eight hours a day

#73

Post by lotsofpulp »

sarchertech wrote: post #72
lotsofpulp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so there isn’t a jurisdiction on earth that considers it genital mutilation. It is a political fight not worth losing, hence no jurisdiction considers it genital mutilation. But the simplest evidence is that if it didn’t already exist, and someone were to propose it, they would be excommunicated from any community for suggesting unnecessary surgery on a baby. > Do you have kids? Babies require constant adult superv…

> But the simplest evidence is that if it didn’t already exist, and someone were to propose it, they would be excommunicated from any community for suggesting unnecessary surgery on a baby. But it does already exist. If ear piercing didn’t exist, people would think you were insane for having someone shove a wire through your kid’s ear. We do all kinds of weird things to our kids that aliens from another planet would…

I feel the same about ear piercing.

That AAP guideline makes more sense to me.

Re: Two-thirds of babies watch screens – some for eight hours a day

#74

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

tsoukase wrote: post #69
jbjbjbjb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sitting in a stroller doesn’t mean the kid can’t walk

Cmon. Let's not always be so pendantic. If we may, a 2yo doesn't fully walk, like eg a 5yo. And a 5yo doesn't walk like a 12yo.

My 5yo can kick an adult hard enough to hurt them thanks to kickboxing training, you bet he can walk like a 12yo lol

Re: Two-thirds of babies watch screens – some for eight hours a day

#75

Post by palmotea »

donatj wrote: post #9

My wife stays home with our kids. My daughter ends up watching a fair bit of television while my wife does chores and the like. We're entirely curating what she's watching and I'm just not that concerned. If anything, she's learning things that I would not thought to teach her at her age. About 6 months ago she had an assessment through the school district for early education and at 2 years of age was able to identif…

> I don't really worry. I watched TV basically my entire childhood growing up in the '80s, in the height of stranger danger where I largely was not allowed to go outside. It was a lot worse than this. I watched game shows, Hogans Heroes, Night Court. She's watching Ms. Rachel, Meekah, and Sesame Street.

For a long time our kid was only allowed to watch Mr. Rogers. That show is very gentle and slow paced (also: people, not brightly colored flashing cartoons), which I read somewhere is great for young kids.

Also, since I watched it as a kid, I kinda know what I'm getting. I don't really have the time to search for and vet TV shows. And I do not trust anything made for streaming economies, after reading about Cocomelon (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/arts/television/cocomelon...) and seeing the stupid unimaginative wasteland that is Blippi (https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2020/08/the-dead-world-o...):

> In fact, the more I watch Blippi (and boy, have I watched Blippi), the more horrified I am by how thin and dull the Blippiverse is. Blippi does not seem to read books. He does not play make-believe, except to pretend he is doing the thing that the toy or playground object has been built for him to do with it. “Science” means dropping a piece of fruit in the pool and seeing if it floats. The interesting thing about an elephant is that it’s heavy. What about music? Art? History? Theater? The natural world? The wonders of outer space? Mr. Rogers had episodes about grandparents, about not wasting things, about being brave at the emergency room. On any given week he might introduce you to Yo-Yo Ma or Eric Carle of Very Hungry Caterpillar fame. Sesame Street met all the people in your neighborhood and talked about what they do and why it matters, rather than focusing on the trucks they drive.

I really wish someone had put in the effort to digitize the whole run of 321 Contact (all I've been able to find is a smattering of nth-generation re-encodes on YouTube).

Re: Two-thirds of babies watch screens – some for eight hours a day

#76

Post by actionfromafar »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #57
hgoel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's better at holding their attention, but is it actually better? My impression was that a lot of the content was effectively "attention slop", bright colors and noises, often with very little sense to them, or just variations of the same rhymes a 90's baby would've been raised on. A lot of it seemed to cross over from just being stimulating to being overstimulating.

> It's better at holding their attention, but is it actually better? As Weller said, that's entertainment. Saying something's slop is like saying it's trash, ie something you don't like.

Yeah? Then heroin is also ice cream.

Re: Two-thirds of babies watch screens – some for eight hours a day

#77

Post by bcjdjsndon »

hgoel wrote: post #58
bcjdjsndon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's better at holding their attention, but is it actually better? As Weller said, that's entertainment. Saying something's slop is like saying it's trash, ie something you don't like.

I'd like to believe that people have a bit more in mind for children's entertainment than just overstimulating their developing visual and auditory cortices for 8 hours a day.

> overstimulating

pure speculation, and dare I say, hysteria

Post reply on HN