4 ms·

Children under two aren't even supposed to watch television. > Television and other entertainment media should be avoided for infants and children under age 2.

Children under two aren't even supposed to watch television. > Television and other entertainment media should be avoided for infants and children under age 2. A child's brain develops rapidly during these first years, and young children learn best by interacting with people, not screens. https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/Pages/Media-and-Children.aspx https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-ini...

throwavay_java 11y ago
yeah. And as a parent who has held back normal bodily functions for an entire day while they did all the "right" things for their kids, sometimes the safest and best thing for everyone involved is to sit the kids in front of TV and know they will stay put for 15 minutes, so you can go to the toilet and then cook their dinner. Also, the other day our 4 year old told me he wanted to be a paleontologist so he can find bones and coprolite. He didn't learn those words from me.
- comrh 11y ago
  He wants to find dino poo, that is a cool 4 year old!
KirinDave 11y ago
These rules are considered to be outdated and very few pediatricians suggest "0 screen time" anymore. Please see various MODERN materials and their sources at: http://www.zerotothree.org/parenting-resources/screen-sense/screen-sense_key-research-finds_final3.pdf http://www.zerotothree.org/parenting-resources/screen-sense/...
- ArtDev 11y ago
  That is because so few parents do the right thing.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    No, the 0 screen time reflects research from a time before real work on educational television and its effects was done. Please read the material before speaking up. Much of it is sourced to actual data, unlike your casual dismissal of my parenting skills.
- bijection 11y ago
  > The research is clear: Children learn better and more efficiently from play and interaction in the “real,” three-dimensional (3-D) world with parents, caregivers, and peers. > This resource provides guidelines for parents and caregivers of children younger than 3 years on how to use screens in ways that minimize the potential negative effects and maximize learning. > Although the body of research on the effect of screen media (beyond TV viewing) is still relatively limited, it clearly points to the following implications for parents and other caregivers: • Be thoughtful about how you use media with young children. Set limits on screen time to be sure that children have plenty of time exploring the real, 3-D world with family and friends. ( ... ) Though the guide doesn't explicitly say it, 0 screen time still seems like the optimal satisfaction of the presented guidelines.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    The message is, "Your TV is not a good substitute for a babysitter or any substitute for parenting." There is absolutely no doubt that real world interactions are what toddler minds are optimized for. Most importantly, children without autism spectrum disorder learn from social interactions. There isn't much of any evidence that you sharing teaching tool with your child that is from a tablet is detrimental. My family limits my daughter's unguided screen time pretty strictly. She gets 1 episode of sesame street in the morning and one episode of Daniel Tiger at another point in the day. If she is sick or has a supersleep day, we'll get 1 episode of something else she likes to help keep her calm. But there is tablet and phone time where we focus on interaction. At her age, a camera is fascinating. She takes me to someplace (usually someplace she played earlier) and we take a picture, she then looks a the picture. As per the guidelines, we don't focus on technical features but rather on the social and real world interactions. I feel absolutely no concern about this. I can see her working out how toe camera works and experimenting, and it's amazing. She's fascinated by beaing able to see things from multiple angles at once, and I think this is healthy. But 0 screen time is just so totally unrealistic in a world of smartphones. What's more, it's not how MANY of us grew up. I was using text consoles, unguided, within a year of learning to read. I look at people who say all screen time is detrimental with the same dim view as people who say vaccines cause autism. It's often cause driven.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  The summary box at the very top of your link says "children learn better and more efficiently from play and interaction in the “real,” three-dimensional (3-D) world with parents, caregivers, and peers" and that there is "no research showing that when children younger than 2 years old use these devices independently it enhances their development" and implies that the only reason for having > 0 screentime is simply because there's so many screens you might as well give up. Sounds pretty much the same as the AAP advice, just more cynical. It looks from elsewhere in this thread you're taking this as a criticism of your parenting skills. Yes, it is easier just to turn the TV on to distract your kids for 15 minutes. When all is said and done we don't know what the effects are and even if they aren't great, there's millions of other kids doing the same thing so it'll probably be OK. But that doesn't mean that other people might find it in their interests to find a way to eliminate that tool for distraction. Maybe you can too - suppose the kids helped you with dinner? Even very young children can be taught to contribute with basic tasks.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    > Sounds pretty much the same as the AAP advice, just more cynical. The fundamental difference is the inclusion of "guided" vs "unguided." There is this implicit assumption that "screen time" means "without continuous parent interaction" because our conversation is colored by the early 90s and television. The AAP advice doesn't differentiate. There's also a strong scent of "excluded middle" in your argument. Two 30 minute sessions of screen time, guided by parents, with programming specifically and scientifically designed for that age bracket is a hell of a lot different than parking your child in front of a television for 2 hours while you answer emails. But even if we ignore that, 24/7 parenting presence is the province of the ultra rich, and often even then the province of women delegated to full primary caregiver status. So smug it up, friend. It's simply not economically possible for many people. You're still just another maybe-parent judging people on the internet. I'll listen to my pediatrician and consults, thanks.
ArtDev 11y ago
My kids had virtually zero screentime before the age of 6. I really think all parents need to try to do this. Limited media is fine for older kids though.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  I could program pascal and play basic Sierra adventure games by 6, on my own. I expect my daughter can surpass me if she gets interested.
  - rangibaby 11y ago
    Hey, me too (the game part, anyway). I memorized all the correct answers to the questions in LSL through trial and error, lol. Good times!
    - KirinDave 11y ago
      Haha, I have the same experience. "I Have Hair..."
DanBC 11y ago
That's American pediatricians and those rules didn't ever seem to have much in the way of evidence to support them.

throwavay_java 11y ago

yeah. And as a parent who has held back normal bodily functions for an entire day while they did all the "right" things for their kids, sometimes the safest and best thing for everyone involved is to sit the kids in front of TV and know they will stay put for 15 minutes, so you can go to the toilet and then cook their dinner. Also, the other day our 4 year old told me he wanted to be a paleontologist so he can find bones and coprolite. He didn't learn those words from me.

comrh 11y ago
He wants to find dino poo, that is a cool 4 year old!

KirinDave 11y ago

These rules are considered to be outdated and very few pediatricians suggest "0 screen time" anymore. Please see various MODERN materials and their sources at: http://www.zerotothree.org/parenting-resources/screen-sense/screen-sense_key-research-finds_final3.pdf http://www.zerotothree.org/parenting-resources/screen-sense/...

ArtDev 11y ago
That is because so few parents do the right thing.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  No, the 0 screen time reflects research from a time before real work on educational television and its effects was done. Please read the material before speaking up. Much of it is sourced to actual data, unlike your casual dismissal of my parenting skills.
bijection 11y ago
> The research is clear: Children learn better and more efficiently from play and interaction in the “real,” three-dimensional (3-D) world with parents, caregivers, and peers. > This resource provides guidelines for parents and caregivers of children younger than 3 years on how to use screens in ways that minimize the potential negative effects and maximize learning. > Although the body of research on the effect of screen media (beyond TV viewing) is still relatively limited, it clearly points to the following implications for parents and other caregivers: • Be thoughtful about how you use media with young children. Set limits on screen time to be sure that children have plenty of time exploring the real, 3-D world with family and friends. ( ... ) Though the guide doesn't explicitly say it, 0 screen time still seems like the optimal satisfaction of the presented guidelines.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  The message is, "Your TV is not a good substitute for a babysitter or any substitute for parenting." There is absolutely no doubt that real world interactions are what toddler minds are optimized for. Most importantly, children without autism spectrum disorder learn from social interactions. There isn't much of any evidence that you sharing teaching tool with your child that is from a tablet is detrimental. My family limits my daughter's unguided screen time pretty strictly. She gets 1 episode of sesame street in the morning and one episode of Daniel Tiger at another point in the day. If she is sick or has a supersleep day, we'll get 1 episode of something else she likes to help keep her calm. But there is tablet and phone time where we focus on interaction. At her age, a camera is fascinating. She takes me to someplace (usually someplace she played earlier) and we take a picture, she then looks a the picture. As per the guidelines, we don't focus on technical features but rather on the social and real world interactions. I feel absolutely no concern about this. I can see her working out how toe camera works and experimenting, and it's amazing. She's fascinated by beaing able to see things from multiple angles at once, and I think this is healthy. But 0 screen time is just so totally unrealistic in a world of smartphones. What's more, it's not how MANY of us grew up. I was using text consoles, unguided, within a year of learning to read. I look at people who say all screen time is detrimental with the same dim view as people who say vaccines cause autism. It's often cause driven.
Amezarak 11y ago
The summary box at the very top of your link says "children learn better and more efficiently from play and interaction in the “real,” three-dimensional (3-D) world with parents, caregivers, and peers" and that there is "no research showing that when children younger than 2 years old use these devices independently it enhances their development" and implies that the only reason for having > 0 screentime is simply because there's so many screens you might as well give up. Sounds pretty much the same as the AAP advice, just more cynical. It looks from elsewhere in this thread you're taking this as a criticism of your parenting skills. Yes, it is easier just to turn the TV on to distract your kids for 15 minutes. When all is said and done we don't know what the effects are and even if they aren't great, there's millions of other kids doing the same thing so it'll probably be OK. But that doesn't mean that other people might find it in their interests to find a way to eliminate that tool for distraction. Maybe you can too - suppose the kids helped you with dinner? Even very young children can be taught to contribute with basic tasks.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  > Sounds pretty much the same as the AAP advice, just more cynical. The fundamental difference is the inclusion of "guided" vs "unguided." There is this implicit assumption that "screen time" means "without continuous parent interaction" because our conversation is colored by the early 90s and television. The AAP advice doesn't differentiate. There's also a strong scent of "excluded middle" in your argument. Two 30 minute sessions of screen time, guided by parents, with programming specifically and scientifically designed for that age bracket is a hell of a lot different than parking your child in front of a television for 2 hours while you answer emails. But even if we ignore that, 24/7 parenting presence is the province of the ultra rich, and often even then the province of women delegated to full primary caregiver status. So smug it up, friend. It's simply not economically possible for many people. You're still just another maybe-parent judging people on the internet. I'll listen to my pediatrician and consults, thanks.

ArtDev 11y ago

My kids had virtually zero screentime before the age of 6. I really think all parents need to try to do this. Limited media is fine for older kids though.

KirinDave 11y ago
I could program pascal and play basic Sierra adventure games by 6, on my own. I expect my daughter can surpass me if she gets interested.
- rangibaby 11y ago
  Hey, me too (the game part, anyway). I memorized all the correct answers to the questions in LSL through trial and error, lol. Good times!
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    Haha, I have the same experience. "I Have Hair..."

DanBC 11y ago

That's American pediatricians and those rules didn't ever seem to have much in the way of evidence to support them.