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

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...