7 ms·

I find the article presenting "screen time" as if it's a single thing highly problematic. Ephemeralization has led to a phone or tablet being equivalent to a n

by Zak 8y ago

I find the article presenting "screen time" as if it's a single thing highly problematic. Ephemeralization has led to a phone or tablet being equivalent to a novel, textbook, comic book, telephone, game console, TV, academic journal (I do, in fact know an 8 year old who reads academic journals), and more. With parents often being much more hesitant than they were 2-3 decades ago to allow children to go anywhere unsupervised, it's often the primary means by which children interact with each other privately. Even a subset like social media use can entail a broad range of different behaviors. One person uses social media to talk with a small circle of friends and family. Another puts on some sort of public display to get attention from strangers. A third plays the addictive "engagement" game. Of course, an observer who just sees a kid holding a tablet has little idea how they're using it. A parent wishing to direct their child's activities has new challenges when a screen can be used for so many different things.

aidenn0 8y ago
I find it not that problematic because one tends to paint in broad strokes when talking about epidemiology. If you have a sample of 1000 8-year olds, then you have at least 995 8-year olds that are doing something other than reading an academic journal. As far as individual kids, judgement calls do have to be made, but it's very challenging to tell what your kids are doing on a screen, particularly if you have multiple kids.
- Zak 8y ago
  > you have at least 995 8-year olds that are doing something other than reading an academic journal. Certainly, but what the other thing is makes a huge difference. The content matters more than the medium.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. The book Reader, Come Home by Maryanne Wolf actually discusses this. There are quantifiable differences between reading online and reading physically. So much so that even printing out the same journal article can change it. It was an interesting read, to say the least.
    - asdff 8y ago
      I find I retain information a lot better if it's printed, and a lot of memory research supports this as well. It is a lot easier to picture a page in a physical book than even a page deliminated format like PDF.
      - dorchadas 8y ago
        Agreed, completely. I feel the same when hand writing something as opposed to typing as well, which is why I try to encourage my students to write and not just take pictures on their phones or type it in their phone/computer notepad
  - tylerl 8y ago
    Watching YouTube. All 995 of them are watching YouTube.
opan 8y ago
I often have a similar thought when reading negative things about "screen time". If I'm going to read a book, it's probably going to be on my computer. That's also where I'd listen to music or watch youtube, though. I'm not sure if it should all just be called screen time.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  The number of people for which screen time primarily means reading ebooks is vanishingly small. Screen time is just a shortcut way of talking about watching mindless YouTube/tv, social media, and gaming.
Consultant32452 8y ago
My daughter started exhibiting some addictive behaviors with her phone so now she's limited to 1 hour of screen time daily. Here's a tiny example of her behavior now. Bed time is 10pm. It doesn't matter what is happening, at exactly 9pm she will claim to be tired, go to her room, and use her one hour of screen time. She does this even if we're actively engaged in a family activity such as playing a game together or whatever else she may enjoy doing. It's this aspect that concerns me, that she continually chooses screen stuff over socialization with friends or family that concerns me far more than what she might specifically be doing on that screen. For what it's worth, she mostly watches vlogs on YouTube.
- thomnottom 8y ago
  Have gone through the same thing. Actually banned my daughter from watching YouTube because she was focusing too much on watching strangers play video games instead of interacting with us (and sometimes even her friends). Things aren't perfect, but I've definitely seen an improvement.
  - ralfhn 8y ago
    My 5yrs old does exactly the same. We restricted video games to only Saturdays so now he watches random people play video games on youtube all week. We're going to ban Youtube as well at least during the weekdays.
    - grumdan 8y ago
      This complete speculation from my side, but I would think that playing video games themselves to be better (or less harmful) than just watching other players. If I had kids, I would be more likely to limit how much they can watch others play and let them play themselves more. This is however hugely biased from having played a lot of video games as a kid and I felt it to be much more dynamic experience that may even help developing some mental faculties than passively watching anything.
      - 8y ago
dahart 8y ago
> I find the article presenting "screen time" as if it's a single thing highly problematic You have a great point about the multi-modal use of screens, but the Nature article isn’t the source of the lumping. Society at large, especially parents and educators and politicians, are the people concerned about screen time in general, regardless of task. Much to your point, this article is doing the important work of actually demonstrating that general screen time may not be the sky-is-falling concern that many have, and people who are painting screen time in general as something bad might be overstating or exaggerating the problems. Perhaps there are specific uses that are bad; we may need to ask more specific questions, or we may discover that there are both advantages and disadvantages to the global social change in screen time, and it can’t be simplified into calling it a net negative.
wvenable 8y ago
I agree with you on the ephemeralization of the phone/tablet/computer. And honestly, that's the problem. The device is so "powerful" these days that it literally can become the entire sole source of entertainment, knowledge, and socialization. As parents, we want our children have well rounded experiences. To do things in the physical world. And it's getting increasingly difficult to do that. The device is so enticing that nothing else can compare.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  And even when you can encourage your child (or yourself -- adults also still need to have well-rounded experiences in the physical world, and outside their comfort zones) to go do something off the screen everyone else is still stuck on it. That's the issue I've been running into lately. Try to go do something, meet new people, etc. and a lot of them are just on their phones, if they're there at all.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    It's true. The big reason that kids don't go out and play anymore is that there are no kids outside playing anymore. I live in a neighbourhood where I'm only a few blocks from 2 elementary schools and I never see any kids out playing.
    - slothtrop 8y ago
      A product of helicopter parenting in many respects. New parents don't tend to like the idea of letting their kids running around the neighborhood. The way those well off enough like to reconcile this with balanced lifestyle is overschedule activities for their kids. They get ze dezignated social time at hockey, soccer, karate every other night. Busy-ing a kid's life has its own pitfalls.
      - crooked-v 8y ago
        Treating it as an intentional choice is ignoring all the cases of "parent gets investigated or arrested for allowing child outside". https://people.com/parents/mom-investigated-dcfs-letting-daughter-walk-dog-alone-wilmette/ https://people.com/parents/mom-investigated-dcfs-letting-dau... https://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/hayley-parenting/tennessee-mom-arrested-after-letting-kids-play-outside-unsuperv https://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/hayley-parenti... https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested-for-letting-a-9-year-old-play-at-the-park-alone/374436/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arreste...
codingdave 8y ago
I like to limit screen time no matter what the activity is simply because it means they are sitting still, with almost no muscle movement, which is not healthy. Whether you are productive on your screens or not is interesting, but not relevant to my motivation when telling my kids to get up, go outside, and move their bodies. The exception is active games - various dancing games on the playstation are exactly how we compromise on such things.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I find the article presenting "screen time" as if it's a single thing highly problematic. While the pattern in research may be confusing, I don't know why the usage in the article—which is basically explaining research which suggests that this frequently studied question is almost certainly a nothingburger—is troubling.
kbouck 8y ago
Completely agree. I've had a session where I was attempting to teach programming to my son cut short because it was considered screen time. That's obviously a very different activity than crushing candy.
nerdponx 8y ago
Wasn't there some research done several years ago suggesting that simply the act of looking at a rapidly-flashing computer or TV screen has an effect on the brain, regardless of what's on the screen?
slothtrop 8y ago
As I see it the issues arise less from some arbitrary level of screen time and more a lack of mobility and real live social time. With those at least you can set minimum quotas. That said, I try to work in screenlessness among sedentary activities like reading. It's so all-encompassing, as you suggest, that I think I spend the majority of my time in front of a screen. What bothers me about it, and my work, is lethargy and isolation. So I take up some gym time. Sports would be a winner. Among friends there's always the low-fi boardgame craze. I'm not sure if it's enough. Even with creative endeavors (say, writing, art, music) this day and age you'll find yourself (usually) reliant on technology for some part of the process. I see a lot of concern about kids here. We were kids, growing up with screens: ultimately they're just bored and want stimulation.

by Zak 8y ago

aidenn0 8y ago

I find it not that problematic because one tends to paint in broad strokes when talking about epidemiology. If you have a sample of 1000 8-year olds, then you have at least 995 8-year olds that are doing something other than reading an academic journal. As far as individual kids, judgement calls do have to be made, but it's very challenging to tell what your kids are doing on a screen, particularly if you have multiple kids.

Zak 8y ago
> you have at least 995 8-year olds that are doing something other than reading an academic journal. Certainly, but what the other thing is makes a huge difference. The content matters more than the medium.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. The book Reader, Come Home by Maryanne Wolf actually discusses this. There are quantifiable differences between reading online and reading physically. So much so that even printing out the same journal article can change it. It was an interesting read, to say the least.
  - asdff 8y ago
    I find I retain information a lot better if it's printed, and a lot of memory research supports this as well. It is a lot easier to picture a page in a physical book than even a page deliminated format like PDF.
    - dorchadas 8y ago
      Agreed, completely. I feel the same when hand writing something as opposed to typing as well, which is why I try to encourage my students to write and not just take pictures on their phones or type it in their phone/computer notepad
- tylerl 8y ago
  Watching YouTube. All 995 of them are watching YouTube.

opan 8y ago

I often have a similar thought when reading negative things about "screen time". If I'm going to read a book, it's probably going to be on my computer. That's also where I'd listen to music or watch youtube, though. I'm not sure if it should all just be called screen time.

Consultant32452 8y ago
The number of people for which screen time primarily means reading ebooks is vanishingly small. Screen time is just a shortcut way of talking about watching mindless YouTube/tv, social media, and gaming.

Consultant32452 8y ago

My daughter started exhibiting some addictive behaviors with her phone so now she's limited to 1 hour of screen time daily. Here's a tiny example of her behavior now. Bed time is 10pm. It doesn't matter what is happening, at exactly 9pm she will claim to be tired, go to her room, and use her one hour of screen time. She does this even if we're actively engaged in a family activity such as playing a game together or whatever else she may enjoy doing. It's this aspect that concerns me, that she continually chooses screen stuff over socialization with friends or family that concerns me far more than what she might specifically be doing on that screen. For what it's worth, she mostly watches vlogs on YouTube.

thomnottom 8y ago
Have gone through the same thing. Actually banned my daughter from watching YouTube because she was focusing too much on watching strangers play video games instead of interacting with us (and sometimes even her friends). Things aren't perfect, but I've definitely seen an improvement.
- ralfhn 8y ago
  My 5yrs old does exactly the same. We restricted video games to only Saturdays so now he watches random people play video games on youtube all week. We're going to ban Youtube as well at least during the weekdays.
  - grumdan 8y ago
    This complete speculation from my side, but I would think that playing video games themselves to be better (or less harmful) than just watching other players. If I had kids, I would be more likely to limit how much they can watch others play and let them play themselves more. This is however hugely biased from having played a lot of video games as a kid and I felt it to be much more dynamic experience that may even help developing some mental faculties than passively watching anything.
    - 8y ago

dahart 8y ago

> I find the article presenting "screen time" as if it's a single thing highly problematic You have a great point about the multi-modal use of screens, but the Nature article isn’t the source of the lumping. Society at large, especially parents and educators and politicians, are the people concerned about screen time in general, regardless of task. Much to your point, this article is doing the important work of actually demonstrating that general screen time may not be the sky-is-falling concern that many have, and people who are painting screen time in general as something bad might be overstating or exaggerating the problems. Perhaps there are specific uses that are bad; we may need to ask more specific questions, or we may discover that there are both advantages and disadvantages to the global social change in screen time, and it can’t be simplified into calling it a net negative.

wvenable 8y ago

I agree with you on the ephemeralization of the phone/tablet/computer. And honestly, that's the problem. The device is so "powerful" these days that it literally can become the entire sole source of entertainment, knowledge, and socialization. As parents, we want our children have well rounded experiences. To do things in the physical world. And it's getting increasingly difficult to do that. The device is so enticing that nothing else can compare.

dorchadas 8y ago
And even when you can encourage your child (or yourself -- adults also still need to have well-rounded experiences in the physical world, and outside their comfort zones) to go do something off the screen everyone else is still stuck on it. That's the issue I've been running into lately. Try to go do something, meet new people, etc. and a lot of them are just on their phones, if they're there at all.
- wvenable 8y ago
  It's true. The big reason that kids don't go out and play anymore is that there are no kids outside playing anymore. I live in a neighbourhood where I'm only a few blocks from 2 elementary schools and I never see any kids out playing.
  - slothtrop 8y ago
    A product of helicopter parenting in many respects. New parents don't tend to like the idea of letting their kids running around the neighborhood. The way those well off enough like to reconcile this with balanced lifestyle is overschedule activities for their kids. They get ze dezignated social time at hockey, soccer, karate every other night. Busy-ing a kid's life has its own pitfalls.
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      Treating it as an intentional choice is ignoring all the cases of "parent gets investigated or arrested for allowing child outside". https://people.com/parents/mom-investigated-dcfs-letting-daughter-walk-dog-alone-wilmette/ https://people.com/parents/mom-investigated-dcfs-letting-dau... https://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/hayley-parenting/tennessee-mom-arrested-after-letting-kids-play-outside-unsuperv https://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/hayley-parenti... https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested-for-letting-a-9-year-old-play-at-the-park-alone/374436/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arreste...

codingdave 8y ago

I like to limit screen time no matter what the activity is simply because it means they are sitting still, with almost no muscle movement, which is not healthy. Whether you are productive on your screens or not is interesting, but not relevant to my motivation when telling my kids to get up, go outside, and move their bodies. The exception is active games - various dancing games on the playstation are exactly how we compromise on such things.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I find the article presenting "screen time" as if it's a single thing highly problematic. While the pattern in research may be confusing, I don't know why the usage in the article—which is basically explaining research which suggests that this frequently studied question is almost certainly a nothingburger—is troubling.

kbouck 8y ago

Completely agree. I've had a session where I was attempting to teach programming to my son cut short because it was considered screen time. That's obviously a very different activity than crushing candy.

nerdponx 8y ago

Wasn't there some research done several years ago suggesting that simply the act of looking at a rapidly-flashing computer or TV screen has an effect on the brain, regardless of what's on the screen?

slothtrop 8y ago

As I see it the issues arise less from some arbitrary level of screen time and more a lack of mobility and real live social time. With those at least you can set minimum quotas. That said, I try to work in screenlessness among sedentary activities like reading. It's so all-encompassing, as you suggest, that I think I spend the majority of my time in front of a screen. What bothers me about it, and my work, is lethargy and isolation. So I take up some gym time. Sports would be a winner. Among friends there's always the low-fi boardgame craze. I'm not sure if it's enough. Even with creative endeavors (say, writing, art, music) this day and age you'll find yourself (usually) reliant on technology for some part of the process. I see a lot of concern about kids here. We were kids, growing up with screens: ultimately they're just bored and want stimulation.