3 ms·

Teens Spend 9 Hours a Day with Media

3 points by dpflan 11y ago

dpflan 11y ago
Here is the study, which requires making an account to access: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-teens https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-c...
gtk40 11y ago
Even things like listening to music were included in this. You could do this while in class (whether earbuds or sometimes the teacher might play some during working time), commute/riding the bus, doing homework, etc. which could make the number go much higher for those so inclined. Reading is included. Coding is included. Writing is included. Not speaking as a teen, but my time would be even higher if my day job, what I do when I commute, and most of my leisure is "media."
dudul 11y ago
"But knowledge of whether that media use will enrich their minds or turn them into easily distractible dullards is fuzzy." Really? Is it fuzzy? Here are the results of a study led by a German pediatrician on 1900 kids 5 to 6 years old. The question was: can you draw some people. This first link (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bO43-eiJbBM/S7URDMTE4WI/AAAAAAAAAKU/JbrZvnfNgOQ/s1600/un+an.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bO43-eiJbBM/S7URDMTE4WI/AAAAAAAAAK...) shows samples of drawings by kids who spend less than 1 hour a day in front of the TV. This is what kids who spend more than 3 hours daily watching TV drew: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bO43-eiJbBM/S7URPAGCQQI/AAAAAAAAAKc/eamwORzg3y8/s1600/deux+ans.gif http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bO43-eiJbBM/S7URPAGCQQI/AAAAAAAAAK... I'm not an old fart, I do watch TV too and enjoy a video game session once in a while, but kids and babies need to talk to people, they need to listen to real people to develop before they can handle just sitting idle in front of a TV. Edit: I'm trying to find a link to the original study that would lead to a content in english.
- smt88 11y ago
  Those look 5 pictures, not 1,900. I'm not going to draw a conclusion based on a tiny subset of the results. Also, "ability to draw a person" certainly isn't any kind of indicator of intelligence, emotional development, etc. The kids who weren't watching TV had to be doing something... which probably included practicing drawing! There may be negative emotional effects to screens, but there certainly is a positive effect on intelligence. I'd know about 1/10 of what I know now if I hadn't discovered Wikipedia when I was 14.
  - dudul 11y ago
    I have no reason to believe that the pediatrician hand picked specifically 5 drawings of each set that were not representative of the overall result. > The kids who weren't watching TV had to be doing something Yes, like talk to people, play with their hands, run outside, draw, etc. Drawings are actually a great indicator of a kid's development. > there certainly is a positive effect on intelligence. I'd know about 1/10 of what I know now if I hadn't discovered Wikipedia when I was 14. Intelligence is not general culture. "knowing things" is not the same as being intelligent. Plus, using screens when you are 14 is not the same as when you are 2 or even 5.
    - smt88 11y ago
      > I have no reason to believe that the pediatrician hand picked specifically 5 drawings of each set that were not representative of the overall result. That pediatrician likely has the same bias as you, which is that you don't like screens and think they're bad. I doubt s/he's undertake this study without that bias. There's also a huge incentive to create and spread studies that show a correlation rather than fail to show anything. It's totally pointless to speculate because we simply don't know what the other almost 2,000 drawings look like. If the rest aren't published somewhere, then the study is very likely BS anyway. > Drawings are actually a great indicator of a kid's development. Define "development" and show me a study. > Intelligence is not general culture. I can't tell if you're trying to say that "Wikipedia is general culture" (which is only a tiny subset of Wikipedia) or if you're saying that screens cause people to miss out on general culture. Anyway, neither point is true. I'd actually say the opposite is true of the latter point. > "knowing things" is not the same as being intelligent. Plus, using screens when you are 14 is not the same as when you are 2 or even 5. Knowing things isn't the same as being intelligent, but constantly learning new things (and being stimulated) certainly does make you more intelligent. Kids aren't just memorizing facts when they read Wikipedia. They're creating things to discuss with parents, which improves critical thinking. They're seeing trends across history and culture. Wikipedia article's aren't supposed to do this technically, but they often teach math and science concepts directly in the article. And that's not even considering the things on devices that are supposed to make kids more intelligent. Most parents point their kids in those directions. I agree that too much screen time can be a net negative, because it causes emotional issues and eliminates boredom, which has a negative effect on creative processes and anxiety levels. But there is very little science about any of this, at least very little good science.
dpflan 11y ago
The frequency with which teens can 'multitask' with media now is higher than previous generations. However, the ability to truly multitask (parallel processing analogy) seems weak. For example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9525679...

3 points by dpflan 11y ago

Here is the study, which requires making an account to access: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-teens https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-c...

gtk40 11y ago

Even things like listening to music were included in this. You could do this while in class (whether earbuds or sometimes the teacher might play some during working time), commute/riding the bus, doing homework, etc. which could make the number go much higher for those so inclined. Reading is included. Coding is included. Writing is included. Not speaking as a teen, but my time would be even higher if my day job, what I do when I commute, and most of my leisure is "media."

dudul 11y ago

"But knowledge of whether that media use will enrich their minds or turn them into easily distractible dullards is fuzzy." Really? Is it fuzzy? Here are the results of a study led by a German pediatrician on 1900 kids 5 to 6 years old. The question was: can you draw some people. This first link (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bO43-eiJbBM/S7URDMTE4WI/AAAAAAAAAKU/JbrZvnfNgOQ/s1600/un+an.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bO43-eiJbBM/S7URDMTE4WI/AAAAAAAAAK...) shows samples of drawings by kids who spend less than 1 hour a day in front of the TV. This is what kids who spend more than 3 hours daily watching TV drew: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bO43-eiJbBM/S7URPAGCQQI/AAAAAAAAAKc/eamwORzg3y8/s1600/deux+ans.gif http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bO43-eiJbBM/S7URPAGCQQI/AAAAAAAAAK... I'm not an old fart, I do watch TV too and enjoy a video game session once in a while, but kids and babies need to talk to people, they need to listen to real people to develop before they can handle just sitting idle in front of a TV. Edit: I'm trying to find a link to the original study that would lead to a content in english.

smt88 11y ago
Those look 5 pictures, not 1,900. I'm not going to draw a conclusion based on a tiny subset of the results. Also, "ability to draw a person" certainly isn't any kind of indicator of intelligence, emotional development, etc. The kids who weren't watching TV had to be doing something... which probably included practicing drawing! There may be negative emotional effects to screens, but there certainly is a positive effect on intelligence. I'd know about 1/10 of what I know now if I hadn't discovered Wikipedia when I was 14.
- dudul 11y ago
  I have no reason to believe that the pediatrician hand picked specifically 5 drawings of each set that were not representative of the overall result. > The kids who weren't watching TV had to be doing something Yes, like talk to people, play with their hands, run outside, draw, etc. Drawings are actually a great indicator of a kid's development. > there certainly is a positive effect on intelligence. I'd know about 1/10 of what I know now if I hadn't discovered Wikipedia when I was 14. Intelligence is not general culture. "knowing things" is not the same as being intelligent. Plus, using screens when you are 14 is not the same as when you are 2 or even 5.
  - smt88 11y ago
    > I have no reason to believe that the pediatrician hand picked specifically 5 drawings of each set that were not representative of the overall result. That pediatrician likely has the same bias as you, which is that you don't like screens and think they're bad. I doubt s/he's undertake this study without that bias. There's also a huge incentive to create and spread studies that show a correlation rather than fail to show anything. It's totally pointless to speculate because we simply don't know what the other almost 2,000 drawings look like. If the rest aren't published somewhere, then the study is very likely BS anyway. > Drawings are actually a great indicator of a kid's development. Define "development" and show me a study. > Intelligence is not general culture. I can't tell if you're trying to say that "Wikipedia is general culture" (which is only a tiny subset of Wikipedia) or if you're saying that screens cause people to miss out on general culture. Anyway, neither point is true. I'd actually say the opposite is true of the latter point. > "knowing things" is not the same as being intelligent. Plus, using screens when you are 14 is not the same as when you are 2 or even 5. Knowing things isn't the same as being intelligent, but constantly learning new things (and being stimulated) certainly does make you more intelligent. Kids aren't just memorizing facts when they read Wikipedia. They're creating things to discuss with parents, which improves critical thinking. They're seeing trends across history and culture. Wikipedia article's aren't supposed to do this technically, but they often teach math and science concepts directly in the article. And that's not even considering the things on devices that are supposed to make kids more intelligent. Most parents point their kids in those directions. I agree that too much screen time can be a net negative, because it causes emotional issues and eliminates boredom, which has a negative effect on creative processes and anxiety levels. But there is very little science about any of this, at least very little good science.

dpflan 11y ago

The frequency with which teens can 'multitask' with media now is higher than previous generations. However, the ability to truly multitask (parallel processing analogy) seems weak. For example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9525679...