6 ms·

Social media use has only minor effects on wellbeing: study

36 points by prostoalex 7y ago

frankydp 7y ago
The parents screen time is probably more damaging than the child's screen time, to the child. They are probably directly correlated, time wise.
- bifrost 7y ago
  Screen time to the neglect of your child is, neglecting your child. There are plenty of ways to balance it.
  - senectus1 7y ago
    This.
isoprophlex 7y ago
There's also the aesthetic argument against raising a generation that never played outside, never got bored so bad they had to invent new games: a generation that completely abstract their bodies into vehicles used to get data into their minds. Pretty dystopic if you ask me. (Edit: I mean young, <12 year olds, on phones and tablets. Elementary school kids shouldn't be on social media for the above reasons, IMO. As an awkward teen, the internet did give me so much good things, too)
- therealx 7y ago
  I think part of it is that it's so kid-by-kid. There will always be those self starters, and those mature enough to use the internet properly. Educating them on proper web use is a parents' job and is something they can do together, like reading.
Haga 7y ago
Lack of motor skill in nearly all new job starters. Lack of tech skills even from those who spend there life in front of screens. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233635159_On_the_Problem_of_Motor_Skill_Development&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjZr9aRkLvjAhWHY1AKHZWiBgkQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2MSugtcYEjrNIZ50KM60Cm https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.researchgate.net/pu... My personal Red flag is how severe the elite limits device time in its institutions. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.eatonsquareschool.com/belgravia/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/C5e.-Eaton-Square-School-Student-Mobile-Phone-Policy.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiItZiNkbvjAhXCLVAKHZztBAgQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1Ld7-Sd-CYWIPQghDkSD1z https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.eatonsquareschool.c... Papa zucks opinion averaged is a heuristic though. There is the possibility to fall for fads for the powerfool too.
lacampbell 7y ago
Didn't the generation currently raising kids get a hell of a lot of screen time themselves growing up? TV and video games were very common in the 90s.
- abraae 7y ago
  I certainly watched a lot of crap TV growing up. However entertainment back then was so feeble compared to today's high voltage stuff it didn't really command one's full attention, there was still time for socializing. By contrast, we had two teenage relatives staying last couple of days and they are deeeply engaged with their devices to the point of near hypnotism.
  - dagenix 7y ago
    > entertainment back then was so feeble compared to today's high voltage stuff Read that sentence back to yourself in your head and then tell me that doesn't sound ridiculous.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    Back before the internet I remember flicking through tv channels being bored because there was nothing on, I have never really felt there was nothing left to do on the internet.
- liability 7y ago
  Half an hour a day, on an egg timer. I wish I would have spent less time in front of a screen.
  - lacampbell 7y ago
    So what do you do for a living now, exactly?
    - liability 7y ago
      Neither watch TV nor play video games...
tropo 7y ago
As eyes grow, their shape is determined by what they see. Viewing lots of black-on-white text (books, most web pages, etc.) moves the focal length one direction. Viewing lots of white-on-black text would do the opposite, but that has gone out of style. That counts. I can't find the research right now, but I think it hit Hacker News a year or two ago.
friendlybus 7y ago
Self reports as a valid measurement??
hkt 7y ago
Screen time (which I know I had too much of, to my lasting detriment) displaces other, better activities. Seriously.
- gHosts 7y ago
  Mostly the problem is that the better activities have become less readily available and/or more expensive.
  - bifrost 7y ago
    Most cities have public parks and libraries that are free.
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      Which are all out of walking distance from the average persons home.
      - King-Aaron 7y ago
        I feel sorry for you, if you live somewhere without a park within walking distance :( I feel that the average persons home would generally be within walking distance to some sort of public open area.
        baroffoos 7y ago
        I'm leaving as soon as possible. This place is very car focused and I hate it. Its an hour walk to the bus stop and a similar time to the supermarket. And this isn't a rural area.
      - bifrost 7y ago
        I live 3 blocks from 2 parks, in San Francisco. Even when I go visit relatives who live in the boonies, there's still a park within a 10-15 minute drive.
    - 7y ago
completelylegit 7y ago
Of course its not good. “too much” of anything isn’t good. If something is too much, its inherently bad. Unless you’re reacting to an old woman by telling here she’s “too much”, thats ok in moderation.
wtfrmyinitials 7y ago
There’s still something to be said for the relative uselessness of most social media. I don’t avoid it by any measure, but I’m also very aware that a minute spent on a given social platform is usually a minute wasted. At least with something like a movie you have a shot at remembering what you saw a month ago. Do you remember what you saw on Instagram yesterday?
remarkEon 7y ago
Where's the evidence? If the people who actually work on and build this stuff are skeptical of letting their kids, especially young ones, use it without limit then that certainly passes the smell test for me that there might be a problem. The revealed preferences of people who work in tech is all the evidence I need.
- dagenix 7y ago
  The thing is, it's not everyone in tech. It's once in a while, some single person in tech denounces some service and there are a million articles written about it. It's anecdata, not data. You shouldn't base your decisions on that fact that some single person you never met and have no reason to trust, decided to say some particular thing that was fun to report on.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    This is a fair point, but just as everyone is not in tech not everyone has time to read academic studies about the affects of screen use on children. A click-bait article from Gizmodo is a terrible heuristic, sure, but is observing the behavior of people who do work in tech, who have kids, and then calibrating your view of the problem really that bad of one?
    - dagenix 7y ago
      I someone that works in the meat packing industry comes out as a cannibal because he thinks human flesh makes his children grow strong, would you listen to him? Of course not - he's a one off and probably out for attention, but he'll get lots of media coverage. But he isn't worth listening to. Random one off's in tech aren't really any more knowledgable.
      - remarkEon 7y ago
        No, because a random guy who encourages eating human flesh is an absurdity - never mind that, even if presented with evidence that it did make children grow strong, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose it. Moderating screen time for children is not like this. What I'm talking about is noticing patterns, and positing a hypothesis based on the behavior of those who would be closer to full knowledge of the instrument in question. That seems ... perfectly reasonable.
gridlockd 7y ago
> Where’s the evidence? There's definitely evidence that we're getting less and less physically fit as a population: https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19525386/why-your-vision-continues-to-get-worse/ https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19525386/why-your-vision-... https://www.stateofobesity.org/childhood-obesity-trends/ https://www.stateofobesity.org/childhood-obesity-trends/ https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/481590997/millennials-may-be-losing-their-grip?t=1563338766395 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/4815909... Physical activity is in decline: http://www.phitamerica.org/News_Archive/Says_Says_19-Year-Olds.htm http://www.phitamerica.org/News_Archive/Says_Says_19-Year-Ol... Less physical activity is also correlated with worse cognitive functioning: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27182986 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27182986 Of course that's not a direct link to "screen time", but then what else could be drawing people to less and less physical activity? I doubt it is books or board games. It's a known fact that many modern apps/games are engineered to be addictive, exploiting loss aversion and reward mechanisms of the human brain.
- dagenix 7y ago
  Did you know that there is a direct correlation between the decrease in pirates and the increase in global temperatures?
- throw20102010 7y ago
  A lot of these things are assuming a traditional model of well-being (that being fit and smart and long lived makes you happier). This is stuff that doctors say I need, but I don't actually need them like air and water. What if our model of well-being is wrong? An obese person can be happy as long as they don't peg their happiness on being able to do a bunch of physical activities. Plus, all the time spent not working out can be spent on pursuing other interests. A dumb person can be happy. There are billions of us. A short lived person can be happy- it's more about the quality of life than the quantity. So if I can live in a world in which I don't have to do a bunch of physical activity, can play with the screens that I want, and can enjoy my life? I don't actually need a lot of the things that a doctor says I need. To be fair, an obese person has a higher chance of being hospitalized, which sucks, so being dumb and obese will probably lead to me being less happy.
completelylegit 7y ago
If you’re the type of parent who saw the story headline and was hoping for some evidence to help you rationalize your childs screentime: Your kid has too much screentime
defen 7y ago
4K screens with instant, unlimited access to almost all video content humanity has ever created are a relatively new thing. Instead of accepting "lack of evidence of harm", I'd prefer to wait for proof that it's not harmful before letting my kids indulge.
- dagenix 7y ago
  1080p is ok, though? Or is it the fact that you can access too much video? Like, if you could only access every 3rd episode of Cheers, then 4k is ok? I guess we'll have to wait for the scientists to weigh in on this one!
dagenix 7y ago
Every generation finds something to panic about because it's going to destroy their children. The article points this out: in the 50s, it was Elvis shaking his hips, the 80s had Dungeons and Dragons, the 90s had video games. And every generation is convinced that while every previous moral panic was nonsense: this time it's different! Chill people. We survived hips and tabletop games and videogames - "screen time" is no different and we'll be just fine with that one too.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  Some of them were real however, smoking really was a terrible idea as was sugar, fast food, and many other things.
  - dagenix 7y ago
    So were man-eating tigers and poison ivy. You can't just make a list of things you don't like and say that that disproved my argument about a moral panic. I cited 3 specific things that parents panicked about primarily because their children were growing up differently than they had. Smoking has decreased over time - it's not unique to some particular generation of children. Fast Food really is something that parents feed to their children, not really a difference in what it means to grow up. And I don't know what to say about sugar - it still exists? I guess thats bad?
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      What do you think about the moral panic about kids picking up vaping or doing drugs at music festivals?
- nfoz 7y ago
  To be fair, not everyone "survived" videogames. I know plenty of people who got "trapped" by them as young adults and some lost years to it or never really moved on. By which I mean, had them as an addiction/escape from developing social skills or confronting other responsibilities.
jovisjoseph 7y ago
I'm a CS engineer graduated from a college in Kerala (South-India). The whole course is 4 years long and in these 4 years, the administration didn't allow students to bring Smartphones to the campus. Yes even for the students who are majoring in computer science. And even laptops were only allowed from 3rd year onwards. Their justification was laptops and smartphones are just a distraction for students. And the rules where quite strict and if you bring any of these to the campus they would fine you heavily. All because of the notion that internet and digital presence is bad for you even if you are studying about these devices.
- dagenix 7y ago
  > All because of the notion that internet and digital presence is bad for you even if you are studying about these devices. Uh, ok. A number of colleges also have curfews and gender segregated dorms. Those aren't good ideas either.
sytelus 7y ago
Has search became so hard these days? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=screen+time+impact+kids&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=screen+time+im... 150,000 hits
- arcturus17 7y ago
  The article authors are Oxford professors and they do mention that they’ve reviewed the literature. What’s your point here?
throw20102010 7y ago
It only hurts kids as much as it hurts everyone else. My 60 y/o mom is on social media for hours per day. That's harmful. My 80 y/o grandma plays Pokemon Go four hours per day, which we initially thought was good because it got her to go walking. Now we can't take her anywhere without slowing us down. It's become harmful. My 6 y/o nephew will totally tune out the world if you let him play Angry Birds, ignoring his parents until someone physically removes the screen from his hands. That's harmful. I hosted a field trip for pre-teen middle schoolers and in our downtime between activities there was zero social interaction because they all buried their heads in their phones (okay, I did observe one student ask another for a charger). That's harmful. Screen time is hurting everyone and singling out kids is just old people refusing to accept that screens changed humanity at all ages. I don't think that our current old-timers lacking screens when they were kids made them any better at life. It only made them worse at using modern technology. The current crop of youngsters may miss out on face-to-face interaction, or maybe their eyes will be shaped poorly for long distance sight. But they'll be better at navigating the digital world, which seems to be where we spend a lot of our time regardless of age.
- dagenix 7y ago
  > Screen time is hurting everyone and singling out kids is just old people refusing to accept that screens changed humanity at all ages Better close your browser window real quick! Don't want any more of that nasty screen time to harm you!
  - throw20102010 7y ago
    I could have easily included myself in my above list of anecdotes. But more importantly, look at all the "harmful" things I listed. My mom interacts with her friends. An old lady slows down a group of people. A kid gets in trouble with his parents. Middle schoolers are socially inept. None of those things are really that harmful, they are mostly expected and regular parts of life.
    - dagenix 7y ago
      Have you read about Poe's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law?
caymanjim 7y ago
I've never thought that screen time had any major detrimental effect on kids. I was spending most of my days in front of a Commodore 64 back in the 80s before it was cool. And most of it was "social media" in the form of single and later multi-user BBS systems, and MUDs once I found the Internet around 1987. I think a much larger problem is that kids aren't given free rein anymore. Part of growing up needs to be time away from adults, getting into challenging social and physical situations, and learning to fend for oneself. That seems to happen far less. I'm not just talking about overbearing helicopter parents (which is a whole other pathology that has grown, but always existed for some unlucky subset of peers). I'm talking about being out in the world and not having your parents as concierges. When I was ten years old, if I wanted to see my friends across town, I had to walk there or ride my bike. If I wanted something to eat, I had to pack a sandwich and bring it. If I wanted a new toy and it wasn't my birthday or Christmas, I had to mow the neighbor's lawn. What I see today are parents who drive their kids to every social event and give them money for whatever they want. Not an allowance for doing chores, just a stream of cash on-demand. They all have cell phones, and call their parents for a ride whenever they want to be somewhere else. When I was a kid, if the parents were at work and we got hungry, we made a sandwich or waited for them to get home and cook dinner. Now they call them at work and whine and some parent orders a pizza. The biggest problem I see with cell phones is that a solution to any trivial inconvenience is a text message away. If I'd called Mom at work back in the day, I'd better have had a broken leg.
root_axis 7y ago
The problem with this study and similar ones is that "use of social media" is measured as a homogeneous activity when in reality the various social media services have complex and important functional distinctions and usage patterns that have a meaningful impact on emotional investment. Spending many hours conversing in a private group chat on Facebook is completely different from lurking photos of attractive people on Instagram or taking photos of every meal for Snapchat or retweeting every celebrity you follow on Twitter. There are other factors to consider as well such as the prominence of and usage patterns of social media within the wider social heiarchy of the peer group. If the in-person social network doesn't have much online cohesion then it stands to reason that use of social media should have a smaller psychological impact compared to peer groups where social media participation is a significant part of socialization.
lefstathiou 7y ago
I am not a fan of news sites delving into philosophical discussions on parenting. The topics are too complex to cover in short pieces and the outcome is to arm people on either side with weak material to support whatever position they have. We all know someone who either was or has a kid that was negatively impacted by over consumption of XYZ. One observable instance of this happening meets the threshold of evidence. The underlying question here isn’t a search for evidence but validation of a prevailing societal “truth” or norm. As it pertains to kids and screen times, many thousands of parents are agitated by this problem (and have been with it’s equivalent for millennia) which to me indicates a high likelihood that there is some human collective view or conscience, that evolves with the times, on factors that positively contribute to ones character and that in this instance, many (thousands upon thousands) parents believe elevated levels of screen time do not do not positively contribute to character relative to say drawing, creative play, chopping down a tree to build a bow an arrow, etc. If you asked my brother and sister who have 3 kids if making them do chores around the house positively contributes to their character, they would respond “undoubtedly”. I’ve never in my life met a parent who disagreed. But I haven’t met all parents and my circles are different than others. I have their views and my life experience but does any of this meet the articles standard of evidence? In a way, I think it does. The question of how best to raise children will live on for ages and I don’t anticipate the guardian has the patience or will to explore it. Which makes it feel like click bait to me (toss out quick piece on topics people are polarized on, get clicks, move on). Some questions I would ask of myself to understand this better: 0) what are solving for? Emotional balance, income, job stability, health? 1) what compromises “hurt” and how do we know it (is it short term vs long term, how do we measure it) 2) what are the thresholds that determine a person has crossed into the state / process of “hurt” (how do we know it when we see it) 3) what threshold of children need to enter this state of hurt before we qualify it as a problem due to the genuine causal link between elevated levels of screen time and this state of “hurt” (10% 50%?) 4) as a parent, how do I know I’m right about any of this? 5) even if I believed the evidence I have is valid and the causal link overwhelming, do I have the right to impose my values on other parents who disagree? Who knows...

36 points by prostoalex 7y ago

The parents screen time is probably more damaging than the child's screen time, to the child. They are probably directly correlated, time wise.

bifrost 7y ago
Screen time to the neglect of your child is, neglecting your child. There are plenty of ways to balance it.
- senectus1 7y ago
  This.

isoprophlex 7y ago

There's also the aesthetic argument against raising a generation that never played outside, never got bored so bad they had to invent new games: a generation that completely abstract their bodies into vehicles used to get data into their minds. Pretty dystopic if you ask me. (Edit: I mean young, <12 year olds, on phones and tablets. Elementary school kids shouldn't be on social media for the above reasons, IMO. As an awkward teen, the internet did give me so much good things, too)

therealx 7y ago
I think part of it is that it's so kid-by-kid. There will always be those self starters, and those mature enough to use the internet properly. Educating them on proper web use is a parents' job and is something they can do together, like reading.

Haga 7y ago

Lack of motor skill in nearly all new job starters. Lack of tech skills even from those who spend there life in front of screens. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233635159_On_the_Problem_of_Motor_Skill_Development&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjZr9aRkLvjAhWHY1AKHZWiBgkQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2MSugtcYEjrNIZ50KM60Cm https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.researchgate.net/pu... My personal Red flag is how severe the elite limits device time in its institutions. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.eatonsquareschool.com/belgravia/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/C5e.-Eaton-Square-School-Student-Mobile-Phone-Policy.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiItZiNkbvjAhXCLVAKHZztBAgQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1Ld7-Sd-CYWIPQghDkSD1z https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.eatonsquareschool.c... Papa zucks opinion averaged is a heuristic though. There is the possibility to fall for fads for the powerfool too.

lacampbell 7y ago

Didn't the generation currently raising kids get a hell of a lot of screen time themselves growing up? TV and video games were very common in the 90s.

abraae 7y ago
I certainly watched a lot of crap TV growing up. However entertainment back then was so feeble compared to today's high voltage stuff it didn't really command one's full attention, there was still time for socializing. By contrast, we had two teenage relatives staying last couple of days and they are deeeply engaged with their devices to the point of near hypnotism.
- dagenix 7y ago
  > entertainment back then was so feeble compared to today's high voltage stuff Read that sentence back to yourself in your head and then tell me that doesn't sound ridiculous.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  Back before the internet I remember flicking through tv channels being bored because there was nothing on, I have never really felt there was nothing left to do on the internet.
liability 7y ago
Half an hour a day, on an egg timer. I wish I would have spent less time in front of a screen.
- lacampbell 7y ago
  So what do you do for a living now, exactly?
  - liability 7y ago
    Neither watch TV nor play video games...

tropo 7y ago

As eyes grow, their shape is determined by what they see. Viewing lots of black-on-white text (books, most web pages, etc.) moves the focal length one direction. Viewing lots of white-on-black text would do the opposite, but that has gone out of style. That counts. I can't find the research right now, but I think it hit Hacker News a year or two ago.

friendlybus 7y ago

Self reports as a valid measurement??

hkt 7y ago

Screen time (which I know I had too much of, to my lasting detriment) displaces other, better activities. Seriously.

gHosts 7y ago
Mostly the problem is that the better activities have become less readily available and/or more expensive.
- bifrost 7y ago
  Most cities have public parks and libraries that are free.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    Which are all out of walking distance from the average persons home.
    - King-Aaron 7y ago
      I feel sorry for you, if you live somewhere without a park within walking distance :( I feel that the average persons home would generally be within walking distance to some sort of public open area.
      - baroffoos 7y ago
        I'm leaving as soon as possible. This place is very car focused and I hate it. Its an hour walk to the bus stop and a similar time to the supermarket. And this isn't a rural area.
    - bifrost 7y ago
      I live 3 blocks from 2 parks, in San Francisco. Even when I go visit relatives who live in the boonies, there's still a park within a 10-15 minute drive.
  - 7y ago

completelylegit 7y ago

Of course its not good. “too much” of anything isn’t good. If something is too much, its inherently bad. Unless you’re reacting to an old woman by telling here she’s “too much”, thats ok in moderation.

wtfrmyinitials 7y ago

There’s still something to be said for the relative uselessness of most social media. I don’t avoid it by any measure, but I’m also very aware that a minute spent on a given social platform is usually a minute wasted. At least with something like a movie you have a shot at remembering what you saw a month ago. Do you remember what you saw on Instagram yesterday?

remarkEon 7y ago

Where's the evidence? If the people who actually work on and build this stuff are skeptical of letting their kids, especially young ones, use it without limit then that certainly passes the smell test for me that there might be a problem. The revealed preferences of people who work in tech is all the evidence I need.

dagenix 7y ago
The thing is, it's not everyone in tech. It's once in a while, some single person in tech denounces some service and there are a million articles written about it. It's anecdata, not data. You shouldn't base your decisions on that fact that some single person you never met and have no reason to trust, decided to say some particular thing that was fun to report on.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  This is a fair point, but just as everyone is not in tech not everyone has time to read academic studies about the affects of screen use on children. A click-bait article from Gizmodo is a terrible heuristic, sure, but is observing the behavior of people who do work in tech, who have kids, and then calibrating your view of the problem really that bad of one?
  - dagenix 7y ago
    I someone that works in the meat packing industry comes out as a cannibal because he thinks human flesh makes his children grow strong, would you listen to him? Of course not - he's a one off and probably out for attention, but he'll get lots of media coverage. But he isn't worth listening to. Random one off's in tech aren't really any more knowledgable.
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      No, because a random guy who encourages eating human flesh is an absurdity - never mind that, even if presented with evidence that it did make children grow strong, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose it. Moderating screen time for children is not like this. What I'm talking about is noticing patterns, and positing a hypothesis based on the behavior of those who would be closer to full knowledge of the instrument in question. That seems ... perfectly reasonable.

gridlockd 7y ago

> Where’s the evidence? There's definitely evidence that we're getting less and less physically fit as a population: https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19525386/why-your-vision-continues-to-get-worse/ https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19525386/why-your-vision-... https://www.stateofobesity.org/childhood-obesity-trends/ https://www.stateofobesity.org/childhood-obesity-trends/ https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/481590997/millennials-may-be-losing-their-grip?t=1563338766395 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/4815909... Physical activity is in decline: http://www.phitamerica.org/News_Archive/Says_Says_19-Year-Olds.htm http://www.phitamerica.org/News_Archive/Says_Says_19-Year-Ol... Less physical activity is also correlated with worse cognitive functioning: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27182986 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27182986 Of course that's not a direct link to "screen time", but then what else could be drawing people to less and less physical activity? I doubt it is books or board games. It's a known fact that many modern apps/games are engineered to be addictive, exploiting loss aversion and reward mechanisms of the human brain.

dagenix 7y ago
Did you know that there is a direct correlation between the decrease in pirates and the increase in global temperatures?
throw20102010 7y ago
A lot of these things are assuming a traditional model of well-being (that being fit and smart and long lived makes you happier). This is stuff that doctors say I need, but I don't actually need them like air and water. What if our model of well-being is wrong? An obese person can be happy as long as they don't peg their happiness on being able to do a bunch of physical activities. Plus, all the time spent not working out can be spent on pursuing other interests. A dumb person can be happy. There are billions of us. A short lived person can be happy- it's more about the quality of life than the quantity. So if I can live in a world in which I don't have to do a bunch of physical activity, can play with the screens that I want, and can enjoy my life? I don't actually need a lot of the things that a doctor says I need. To be fair, an obese person has a higher chance of being hospitalized, which sucks, so being dumb and obese will probably lead to me being less happy.

completelylegit 7y ago

If you’re the type of parent who saw the story headline and was hoping for some evidence to help you rationalize your childs screentime: Your kid has too much screentime

defen 7y ago

4K screens with instant, unlimited access to almost all video content humanity has ever created are a relatively new thing. Instead of accepting "lack of evidence of harm", I'd prefer to wait for proof that it's not harmful before letting my kids indulge.

dagenix 7y ago
1080p is ok, though? Or is it the fact that you can access too much video? Like, if you could only access every 3rd episode of Cheers, then 4k is ok? I guess we'll have to wait for the scientists to weigh in on this one!

dagenix 7y ago

Every generation finds something to panic about because it's going to destroy their children. The article points this out: in the 50s, it was Elvis shaking his hips, the 80s had Dungeons and Dragons, the 90s had video games. And every generation is convinced that while every previous moral panic was nonsense: this time it's different! Chill people. We survived hips and tabletop games and videogames - "screen time" is no different and we'll be just fine with that one too.

baroffoos 7y ago
Some of them were real however, smoking really was a terrible idea as was sugar, fast food, and many other things.
- dagenix 7y ago
  So were man-eating tigers and poison ivy. You can't just make a list of things you don't like and say that that disproved my argument about a moral panic. I cited 3 specific things that parents panicked about primarily because their children were growing up differently than they had. Smoking has decreased over time - it's not unique to some particular generation of children. Fast Food really is something that parents feed to their children, not really a difference in what it means to grow up. And I don't know what to say about sugar - it still exists? I guess thats bad?
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    What do you think about the moral panic about kids picking up vaping or doing drugs at music festivals?
nfoz 7y ago
To be fair, not everyone "survived" videogames. I know plenty of people who got "trapped" by them as young adults and some lost years to it or never really moved on. By which I mean, had them as an addiction/escape from developing social skills or confronting other responsibilities.

jovisjoseph 7y ago

I'm a CS engineer graduated from a college in Kerala (South-India). The whole course is 4 years long and in these 4 years, the administration didn't allow students to bring Smartphones to the campus. Yes even for the students who are majoring in computer science. And even laptops were only allowed from 3rd year onwards. Their justification was laptops and smartphones are just a distraction for students. And the rules where quite strict and if you bring any of these to the campus they would fine you heavily. All because of the notion that internet and digital presence is bad for you even if you are studying about these devices.

dagenix 7y ago
> All because of the notion that internet and digital presence is bad for you even if you are studying about these devices. Uh, ok. A number of colleges also have curfews and gender segregated dorms. Those aren't good ideas either.

sytelus 7y ago

Has search became so hard these days? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=screen+time+impact+kids&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&q=screen+time+im... 150,000 hits

arcturus17 7y ago
The article authors are Oxford professors and they do mention that they’ve reviewed the literature. What’s your point here?

throw20102010 7y ago

It only hurts kids as much as it hurts everyone else. My 60 y/o mom is on social media for hours per day. That's harmful. My 80 y/o grandma plays Pokemon Go four hours per day, which we initially thought was good because it got her to go walking. Now we can't take her anywhere without slowing us down. It's become harmful. My 6 y/o nephew will totally tune out the world if you let him play Angry Birds, ignoring his parents until someone physically removes the screen from his hands. That's harmful. I hosted a field trip for pre-teen middle schoolers and in our downtime between activities there was zero social interaction because they all buried their heads in their phones (okay, I did observe one student ask another for a charger). That's harmful. Screen time is hurting everyone and singling out kids is just old people refusing to accept that screens changed humanity at all ages. I don't think that our current old-timers lacking screens when they were kids made them any better at life. It only made them worse at using modern technology. The current crop of youngsters may miss out on face-to-face interaction, or maybe their eyes will be shaped poorly for long distance sight. But they'll be better at navigating the digital world, which seems to be where we spend a lot of our time regardless of age.

dagenix 7y ago
> Screen time is hurting everyone and singling out kids is just old people refusing to accept that screens changed humanity at all ages Better close your browser window real quick! Don't want any more of that nasty screen time to harm you!
- throw20102010 7y ago
  I could have easily included myself in my above list of anecdotes. But more importantly, look at all the "harmful" things I listed. My mom interacts with her friends. An old lady slows down a group of people. A kid gets in trouble with his parents. Middle schoolers are socially inept. None of those things are really that harmful, they are mostly expected and regular parts of life.
  - dagenix 7y ago
    Have you read about Poe's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law?

caymanjim 7y ago

I've never thought that screen time had any major detrimental effect on kids. I was spending most of my days in front of a Commodore 64 back in the 80s before it was cool. And most of it was "social media" in the form of single and later multi-user BBS systems, and MUDs once I found the Internet around 1987. I think a much larger problem is that kids aren't given free rein anymore. Part of growing up needs to be time away from adults, getting into challenging social and physical situations, and learning to fend for oneself. That seems to happen far less. I'm not just talking about overbearing helicopter parents (which is a whole other pathology that has grown, but always existed for some unlucky subset of peers). I'm talking about being out in the world and not having your parents as concierges. When I was ten years old, if I wanted to see my friends across town, I had to walk there or ride my bike. If I wanted something to eat, I had to pack a sandwich and bring it. If I wanted a new toy and it wasn't my birthday or Christmas, I had to mow the neighbor's lawn. What I see today are parents who drive their kids to every social event and give them money for whatever they want. Not an allowance for doing chores, just a stream of cash on-demand. They all have cell phones, and call their parents for a ride whenever they want to be somewhere else. When I was a kid, if the parents were at work and we got hungry, we made a sandwich or waited for them to get home and cook dinner. Now they call them at work and whine and some parent orders a pizza. The biggest problem I see with cell phones is that a solution to any trivial inconvenience is a text message away. If I'd called Mom at work back in the day, I'd better have had a broken leg.

root_axis 7y ago

The problem with this study and similar ones is that "use of social media" is measured as a homogeneous activity when in reality the various social media services have complex and important functional distinctions and usage patterns that have a meaningful impact on emotional investment. Spending many hours conversing in a private group chat on Facebook is completely different from lurking photos of attractive people on Instagram or taking photos of every meal for Snapchat or retweeting every celebrity you follow on Twitter. There are other factors to consider as well such as the prominence of and usage patterns of social media within the wider social heiarchy of the peer group. If the in-person social network doesn't have much online cohesion then it stands to reason that use of social media should have a smaller psychological impact compared to peer groups where social media participation is a significant part of socialization.

lefstathiou 7y ago

I am not a fan of news sites delving into philosophical discussions on parenting. The topics are too complex to cover in short pieces and the outcome is to arm people on either side with weak material to support whatever position they have. We all know someone who either was or has a kid that was negatively impacted by over consumption of XYZ. One observable instance of this happening meets the threshold of evidence. The underlying question here isn’t a search for evidence but validation of a prevailing societal “truth” or norm. As it pertains to kids and screen times, many thousands of parents are agitated by this problem (and have been with it’s equivalent for millennia) which to me indicates a high likelihood that there is some human collective view or conscience, that evolves with the times, on factors that positively contribute to ones character and that in this instance, many (thousands upon thousands) parents believe elevated levels of screen time do not do not positively contribute to character relative to say drawing, creative play, chopping down a tree to build a bow an arrow, etc. If you asked my brother and sister who have 3 kids if making them do chores around the house positively contributes to their character, they would respond “undoubtedly”. I’ve never in my life met a parent who disagreed. But I haven’t met all parents and my circles are different than others. I have their views and my life experience but does any of this meet the articles standard of evidence? In a way, I think it does. The question of how best to raise children will live on for ages and I don’t anticipate the guardian has the patience or will to explore it. Which makes it feel like click bait to me (toss out quick piece on topics people are polarized on, get clicks, move on). Some questions I would ask of myself to understand this better: 0) what are solving for? Emotional balance, income, job stability, health? 1) what compromises “hurt” and how do we know it (is it short term vs long term, how do we measure it) 2) what are the thresholds that determine a person has crossed into the state / process of “hurt” (how do we know it when we see it) 3) what threshold of children need to enter this state of hurt before we qualify it as a problem due to the genuine causal link between elevated levels of screen time and this state of “hurt” (10% 50%?) 4) as a parent, how do I know I’m right about any of this? 5) even if I believed the evidence I have is valid and the causal link overwhelming, do I have the right to impose my values on other parents who disagree? Who knows...