7 ms·

Is screen time good or bad? It’s not that simple

61 points by mrkuchbhi 8y ago

xupybd 8y ago
Well I think this depends on what you're measuring as the impact of screen time. There are some negative effects of screen time that are not in doubt. It leads to a sedentary life style, this has negative impacts on fitness and health. It also isn't great for your eyes to maintain the same focal distance for long periods of time.
- aiiane 8y ago
  The same is true for reading a book but you don't see people up in arms about that.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    I think you overestimate most people’s tolerance for children who are always reading. My interest was not exactly reinforced by adult praise and encouragement all the time. I’m confident there are plenty of people who got copious negative reinforcement for reading. > [Writing] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality. > Socrates http://apt46.net/2011/05/18/socrates-was-against-writing/ http://apt46.net/2011/05/18/socrates-was-against-writing/
    - squirrelicus 8y ago
      Well, ya know, Socrates was great and all, but this particular theory isn't exactly supported by the millennia that came after him.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    I have this specific memory in primary school of sitting by myself during class when everyone else was either on the mat or doing whatever the order of the day was and I was absorbed in reading a stars wars novel to the complete exclusion of what I was supposed to be doing. I never shut up in class and would constantly talk on the mat to other kids and was often separated for that. I think the teacher just left me the hell alone absorbed in my Star Wars novel that day because at least I wasn't distracting anyone. Fond memory that.
  - crazynick4 8y ago
    I've never found myself unable to stop reading a book even when I knew I should be doing something else. Like now. I should be getting some sleep but instead I'm reading/commenting about screen time. I think, mobile devices especially, are addictive in ways that prior media was just not. I often feel the way I felt after a few months of being a regular smoker - not really getting much pleasure from being online and knowing that I'm not really learning anything useful, but not really able to stop either. (I should note I did quit smoking entirely shortly after getting to that point though)
    - baddox 8y ago
      I have certainly had the same experience with a book.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        Yeah but how long does it take to read a book? Even if someone was binging on War and Peace, or The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, one is addicted only for a few weeks or months at most- the internet is infinite.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        So is the bookstore.
        Nition 8y ago
        Not really arguing either way here but I don't think the analogy really holds up. There are many books just like there are many websites.
        crazynick4 8y ago
        I guess the differentiating factor is the instant availability. You can go to a library pick out one book, and unless it's exceptional you'll only be able to read it for some amount of time before you feel like you need to do something else. With the internet, the "something else" can still be the internet. And with a book, if you're truly binging on it, then youll be done in several days at most for the longer books. And, chances are, you won't be going back to the library for another book right away and, if you do, the next one probably won't be as bingeworthy. I guess I can see the analogy but it's still like comparing nicotine to caffeine.
- skywhopper 8y ago
  Yes, I think that's the point of the analysis: that "screen time" is wildly underspecified and that it's probably correlated to other unconsidered factors.
- flyingfences 8y ago
  Screen exposure before bedtime can also drastically affect sleep. Different color temperature and intensity and all, but on top of that is also the barrage of information that the screens deliver, which keeps our minds on alert. I find that I'm sleeping much better now that I turn off all screens at least half an hour before I start getting ready to go to sleep.
  - garyfirestorm 8y ago
    One could argue that if you were solving a complex problem that particular day, and it bothered you enough, you would still be thinking about it before going to bed. Wouldn't that keep your mind alert. As far as light intensity and color goes, many Asian countries have daylight florescent tube lights in their homes just like the ones in offices in US. But no one's complaining about drastic sleep deprivation in Asian countries with bright lights emitting all sorts of spectra
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      Yes, but by pumping oneself with information is to artificially induce complex problems. It's artificially inducing strain. Why excuse self-inflicted stress by saying that such stress occurs naturally as well? Sleep deprivation is a major problem in Asian countries, but for different reasons: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/21/singaporeans-among-most-sleep-deprived-worldwide.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/21/singaporeans-among-most-slee... http://www.atimes.com/article/hidden-costs-asias-walking-dead-office-workers/ http://www.atimes.com/article/hidden-costs-asias-walking-dea...
- dwd 8y ago
  Our eyes are constantly moving and refocusing (microsaccades), you never literally stare at the one spot. The problem with too much screen time is you blink less resulting in dry eyes.
boiltFrawgz 8y ago
Correct. Screen Time is an Apple product, and an invention of marketing. The reality is that human behavior is drastically modified by mobile devices, the cloud and ubiquitous wireless broadband. You couldn’t escape if you tried. The frogs are boiling.
Sendotsh 8y ago
"Screen time" != "Screen time". That's my main problem with all this "screen time is bad" stuff. There's a huge difference between a kid spending 2 hours playing Flappy Bird and spending 2 hours playing with an educational app, or drawing/painting in an app, or watching tutorials on YouTube. It's like saying "time at the park is bad for you" because some kids go to the park to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. Screen time isn't bad for kids. Parents not controlling what kids DO on the screens is bad for kids. It's all just another convenient thing for parents to point at and blame for their lazy parenting. Moderate what your kids do, push them towards using screens and technology in educational and beneficial ways that stimulate their imagination and creativity, control the amount of time they spend sedentary, and teach them that like all things in life, balance and variety are important. (Parent of 2 kids, who get unlimited access to TV, game consoles, and a tablet, and would much rather play Lego)
- alkibiades 8y ago
  but even then excessive screen time is still bad because of what it precludes the kid from doing instead. like socializing or exercise. but that’s in the extreme case and would also apply to excessive anything, like reading
  - p1necone 8y ago
    Likewise excessive socializing or exercise would preclude kids from reading or screen time. I don't see your point.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Double_a_92 8y ago
      I guess their point was to balance the times. I.e. Yes, excessive socializing would also be bad if you start neglecting everything else.
      - 8y ago
apotheosis 8y ago
Meta-analyses aren't science, either. They're hardly more than commentary as it's very easy to interpret many studies in a particular way.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Out of curiosity how does one arrive at that cognitive veiwpoint? I can't seem to find my way there. If we assume it's true for arguments sake then you can't read a meta-analysis of meta-analyses in order to reach that conclusion because such an act wouldn't be deemed a legitimate source of information... So how do you get there? What's the path to seeing things from that specific angle?
harryf 8y ago
The correct answer is we don’t know. In other words we rolled out a technology and now we’re conducting a giant science experiment on ourselves where it’s possible that the consequences are extremely harmful, such as producing a generation that’s going to suffer from all kinds of mental and physical issues through lack of exercise, insomnia and poor social skills. That compounded by a medical industry that likes to throw drugs at symptoms rather than solve the underlying causes. It could go the other way of course and lead to a generation that’s smarter and more capable than ever before, thanks to being exposed to far more collective knowledge and wisdom than any before them. Probably it will be some of both but to put it in context I think it’s always good to remember radium water (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor) as a cautionary tale of how blind faith in progress and technology can go wrong.
- mrmanner 8y ago
  While I agree that we should be cautious, this is more or less the same arguments that where used against industrialization, cars, trains, children reading books, movies, vaccines, etc?
jesperlang 8y ago
Not sure this analogy works but here goes... Could you see it as what the car industry did for transportation, the tech industry is doing for our mental infrastructure? Setting up a private car infrastructure was a gigantic experiment with unforeseen (or were they really?) consequences to pollution, noise, the way cities were built/grew and so on. The initial idea was not much criticized, we have only been fine tuning the technology (safer cars, electric cars, better roads, etc). And today we are doing the same experiment but with our minds. And it's not going to change, we're just going to fine tune it. When your products are infrastructure you are safe. So screen/software makers don't really care about the debate of screen time. It's a debate about how much time and what you do on your screen and not so much how we should live our lives (we are already living a lot of our lives through screens!).
bstar77 8y ago
I feel like I hit the sweet spot in life (I'm 42 now) to be able to appreciate what computers can do for me while not getting trapped in the cycle of dopamine craving content that's pushed on us now. Back in 1987, to play games or do anything fun on a computer, you had to know how to use the computer. That would lead you down a rathole of technical questions that had the pay off of getting a game working, but also taught you stuff that was really useful. Today's devices are all about instant gratification, so kids have gotten into the habit of expecting that. I struggle mightily with my 10 year old son now with him understanding that not all things we do can have an immediately positive feedback loop. I don't want him to loose interest in rewarding things just because their is a barrier that needs to be overcome. So my criticism of screen time is mainly in how our children (and adults) choose to use their time. Binge watching videos on youtube about their favorite game is not the same quality content as building a Raspberry Pie to create an emulation station. Both are focused on gaming, but one teaches you problem solving and hardware/software skills.

61 points by mrkuchbhi 8y ago

Well I think this depends on what you're measuring as the impact of screen time. There are some negative effects of screen time that are not in doubt. It leads to a sedentary life style, this has negative impacts on fitness and health. It also isn't great for your eyes to maintain the same focal distance for long periods of time.

aiiane 8y ago
The same is true for reading a book but you don't see people up in arms about that.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  I think you overestimate most people’s tolerance for children who are always reading. My interest was not exactly reinforced by adult praise and encouragement all the time. I’m confident there are plenty of people who got copious negative reinforcement for reading. > [Writing] will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality. > Socrates http://apt46.net/2011/05/18/socrates-was-against-writing/ http://apt46.net/2011/05/18/socrates-was-against-writing/
  - squirrelicus 8y ago
    Well, ya know, Socrates was great and all, but this particular theory isn't exactly supported by the millennia that came after him.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  I have this specific memory in primary school of sitting by myself during class when everyone else was either on the mat or doing whatever the order of the day was and I was absorbed in reading a stars wars novel to the complete exclusion of what I was supposed to be doing. I never shut up in class and would constantly talk on the mat to other kids and was often separated for that. I think the teacher just left me the hell alone absorbed in my Star Wars novel that day because at least I wasn't distracting anyone. Fond memory that.
- crazynick4 8y ago
  I've never found myself unable to stop reading a book even when I knew I should be doing something else. Like now. I should be getting some sleep but instead I'm reading/commenting about screen time. I think, mobile devices especially, are addictive in ways that prior media was just not. I often feel the way I felt after a few months of being a regular smoker - not really getting much pleasure from being online and knowing that I'm not really learning anything useful, but not really able to stop either. (I should note I did quit smoking entirely shortly after getting to that point though)
  - baddox 8y ago
    I have certainly had the same experience with a book.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      Yeah but how long does it take to read a book? Even if someone was binging on War and Peace, or The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, one is addicted only for a few weeks or months at most- the internet is infinite.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        So is the bookstore.
      - Nition 8y ago
        Not really arguing either way here but I don't think the analogy really holds up. There are many books just like there are many websites.
      - crazynick4 8y ago
        I guess the differentiating factor is the instant availability. You can go to a library pick out one book, and unless it's exceptional you'll only be able to read it for some amount of time before you feel like you need to do something else. With the internet, the "something else" can still be the internet. And with a book, if you're truly binging on it, then youll be done in several days at most for the longer books. And, chances are, you won't be going back to the library for another book right away and, if you do, the next one probably won't be as bingeworthy. I guess I can see the analogy but it's still like comparing nicotine to caffeine.
skywhopper 8y ago
Yes, I think that's the point of the analysis: that "screen time" is wildly underspecified and that it's probably correlated to other unconsidered factors.
flyingfences 8y ago
Screen exposure before bedtime can also drastically affect sleep. Different color temperature and intensity and all, but on top of that is also the barrage of information that the screens deliver, which keeps our minds on alert. I find that I'm sleeping much better now that I turn off all screens at least half an hour before I start getting ready to go to sleep.
- garyfirestorm 8y ago
  One could argue that if you were solving a complex problem that particular day, and it bothered you enough, you would still be thinking about it before going to bed. Wouldn't that keep your mind alert. As far as light intensity and color goes, many Asian countries have daylight florescent tube lights in their homes just like the ones in offices in US. But no one's complaining about drastic sleep deprivation in Asian countries with bright lights emitting all sorts of spectra
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    Yes, but by pumping oneself with information is to artificially induce complex problems. It's artificially inducing strain. Why excuse self-inflicted stress by saying that such stress occurs naturally as well? Sleep deprivation is a major problem in Asian countries, but for different reasons: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/21/singaporeans-among-most-sleep-deprived-worldwide.html https://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/21/singaporeans-among-most-slee... http://www.atimes.com/article/hidden-costs-asias-walking-dead-office-workers/ http://www.atimes.com/article/hidden-costs-asias-walking-dea...
dwd 8y ago
Our eyes are constantly moving and refocusing (microsaccades), you never literally stare at the one spot. The problem with too much screen time is you blink less resulting in dry eyes.

boiltFrawgz 8y ago

Correct. Screen Time is an Apple product, and an invention of marketing. The reality is that human behavior is drastically modified by mobile devices, the cloud and ubiquitous wireless broadband. You couldn’t escape if you tried. The frogs are boiling.

Sendotsh 8y ago

"Screen time" != "Screen time". That's my main problem with all this "screen time is bad" stuff. There's a huge difference between a kid spending 2 hours playing Flappy Bird and spending 2 hours playing with an educational app, or drawing/painting in an app, or watching tutorials on YouTube. It's like saying "time at the park is bad for you" because some kids go to the park to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. Screen time isn't bad for kids. Parents not controlling what kids DO on the screens is bad for kids. It's all just another convenient thing for parents to point at and blame for their lazy parenting. Moderate what your kids do, push them towards using screens and technology in educational and beneficial ways that stimulate their imagination and creativity, control the amount of time they spend sedentary, and teach them that like all things in life, balance and variety are important. (Parent of 2 kids, who get unlimited access to TV, game consoles, and a tablet, and would much rather play Lego)

alkibiades 8y ago
but even then excessive screen time is still bad because of what it precludes the kid from doing instead. like socializing or exercise. but that’s in the extreme case and would also apply to excessive anything, like reading
- p1necone 8y ago
  Likewise excessive socializing or exercise would preclude kids from reading or screen time. I don't see your point.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Double_a_92 8y ago
    I guess their point was to balance the times. I.e. Yes, excessive socializing would also be bad if you start neglecting everything else.
    - 8y ago

apotheosis 8y ago

Meta-analyses aren't science, either. They're hardly more than commentary as it's very easy to interpret many studies in a particular way.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
Out of curiosity how does one arrive at that cognitive veiwpoint? I can't seem to find my way there. If we assume it's true for arguments sake then you can't read a meta-analysis of meta-analyses in order to reach that conclusion because such an act wouldn't be deemed a legitimate source of information... So how do you get there? What's the path to seeing things from that specific angle?

harryf 8y ago

The correct answer is we don’t know. In other words we rolled out a technology and now we’re conducting a giant science experiment on ourselves where it’s possible that the consequences are extremely harmful, such as producing a generation that’s going to suffer from all kinds of mental and physical issues through lack of exercise, insomnia and poor social skills. That compounded by a medical industry that likes to throw drugs at symptoms rather than solve the underlying causes. It could go the other way of course and lead to a generation that’s smarter and more capable than ever before, thanks to being exposed to far more collective knowledge and wisdom than any before them. Probably it will be some of both but to put it in context I think it’s always good to remember radium water (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor) as a cautionary tale of how blind faith in progress and technology can go wrong.

mrmanner 8y ago
While I agree that we should be cautious, this is more or less the same arguments that where used against industrialization, cars, trains, children reading books, movies, vaccines, etc?

jesperlang 8y ago

Not sure this analogy works but here goes... Could you see it as what the car industry did for transportation, the tech industry is doing for our mental infrastructure? Setting up a private car infrastructure was a gigantic experiment with unforeseen (or were they really?) consequences to pollution, noise, the way cities were built/grew and so on. The initial idea was not much criticized, we have only been fine tuning the technology (safer cars, electric cars, better roads, etc). And today we are doing the same experiment but with our minds. And it's not going to change, we're just going to fine tune it. When your products are infrastructure you are safe. So screen/software makers don't really care about the debate of screen time. It's a debate about how much time and what you do on your screen and not so much how we should live our lives (we are already living a lot of our lives through screens!).

bstar77 8y ago

I feel like I hit the sweet spot in life (I'm 42 now) to be able to appreciate what computers can do for me while not getting trapped in the cycle of dopamine craving content that's pushed on us now. Back in 1987, to play games or do anything fun on a computer, you had to know how to use the computer. That would lead you down a rathole of technical questions that had the pay off of getting a game working, but also taught you stuff that was really useful. Today's devices are all about instant gratification, so kids have gotten into the habit of expecting that. I struggle mightily with my 10 year old son now with him understanding that not all things we do can have an immediately positive feedback loop. I don't want him to loose interest in rewarding things just because their is a barrier that needs to be overcome. So my criticism of screen time is mainly in how our children (and adults) choose to use their time. Binge watching videos on youtube about their favorite game is not the same quality content as building a Raspberry Pie to create an emulation station. Both are focused on gaming, but one teaches you problem solving and hardware/software skills.