3 ms·
That just can't be the average. That must be the very top of the curve. For it to be the average, with the very bi-modal distribution coming from parents who ha
by apetresc 7y ago
That just can't be the average. That must be the very top of the curve. For it to be the average, with the very bi-modal distribution coming from parents who have no-screens policies, the average in that other cluster would have to be like 8 hours a day. I just don't believe that's possible with any frequency.
- silversconfused 7y agoTop of the curve is closer to 16-20 hours a day. As in, if they didn't fall asleep, it'd literally be 24 hours. Lots of parents let their kids eat and sleep in front of the tv, and that's nothing new to this generation.
- sampleinajar 7y agoWhat's the methodology? If the tv is on is that counted regardless of whether kids are actively watching or not? I could see a tv on all day skewing numbers easily.
- moate 7y agoI mean "mean" parents, not median parents. Sure, there's no-screen policy parents, but those feel (citation needed!) like a less common occurrence than "some" or "unrestricted" screen parents. If no-screen parents only represent 10% of the total population, they're not going to do as much pulling the number down as you might think. There's no way there's an equal distribution on this stuff among between "none" and "some" so they won't weight as heavily towards lowering the curve. Also, it's a pretty wide age range. What people allow a 2 year old vs a 5 year old to do/consume is a world apart. There's all sorts of things that go into it. I agree, without deep diving into methodology, these numbers are a whole lot of "but what does this actually MEAN"?