4 ms·

I continue to be surprised by the scope of these studies. Has nobody figured out that the screens are incidental and it is the content difference that matters?

I continue to be surprised by the scope of these studies. Has nobody figured out that the screens are incidental and it is the content difference that matters? Listening to several hours of inane audio books every day is unlikely to be any better for a child's development. Interaction. Competition. Surprise. These are the keys, not the lack of blinken lights

riffraff 7y ago
Pedagogy is hard, but I am inclined to agree. But it's really easy to put a kid in front of some cartoon and forget about them, they'll re-watch the same thing over and over and over, lacking interaction, competition and surprise. So "screen time" is probably a good enough proxy for "passive screen time", which would be bad by your definition too.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  Yes of course it's important to note that screens are huge enablers of passive consumption. But the way we name things is important. Calling it passive consumption yields all sorts of interesting questions. Is the sickness of Facebook/Instagram any different from that of Netflix/YouTube? How about than Fox news? Does it actually matter what age you are? How much is bad? Does live theater count? What about a concert? Parents deserve the nuanced result/questions when deciding what is right for their children and selves (if indeed my supposition is correct ish). Calling it screen time is lazy science until it is shown to be unique to screens (which would be an immense surprise to me)
  - satyrnein 7y ago
    I would have thought Facebook contained interaction, competition, and surprise, for better or worse.
    - Misdicorl 7y ago
      Only if you're publishing a lot. I think most users mostly just scroll through their feed. Nonetheless I see your point. Perhaps there is an interesting distinction! Maybe worth investigating, and not particularly suggested by a 'screens are bad' line of thinking
  - teunispeters 7y ago
    related: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39354-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39354-4
andrepd 7y ago
Since you've "figured it out" I assume you have done a complete study to come to that conclusion? Otherwise your hunch is as good as mine.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  I've certainly not figured it out, but I think I'm allowed to make criticisms of a study and how it's reported. And further to describe what I think is a reasonable guess at the underlying cause. It's likely my guess is incomplete or even wrong. But I think it's even more likely that screens are a bogeyman.
teunispeters 7y ago
I seem to have read a number of reports confirming that list. Challenge - but not overwhelming challenge - is really good for minds. All ages. And a passive screen does not challenge anyone ... without real world interaction...
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  Yes challenge is much better suited than surprise in this list. Thank you
Reedx 7y ago
Right. The brain is like a muscle, and if it's not being engaged or challenged, then what would you expect? You could replace these studies with: "Not using the brain is bad for the brain." The screen itself is basically a red herring. What's on the screen matters. There's a big difference between interacting with a puzzle or strategy game and passively consuming a video, for example.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  The thing is your brain is 'stimulated' but not deep enough or the right way. So everybody feels attracted to it.
jacobolus 7y ago
> not the lack of blinken lights I can’t agree with this. Stimulating lights and sounds which distract attention and make it more difficult to focus on a problem or task are actively getting in the way of learning.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  You're describing a situation where the screen is a secondary activity in the background. A conversation by adults could be just as distracting and yet you hopefully wouldn't advise that adults conversing is harmful to childhood development
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    No I am talking about the media itself being overstimulating in a way irrelevant to what the medium is capable of teaching or what the media is intended to teach. For a 2-year-old, playing with a toy with a bunch of buttons that blink lights and make sounds is a lot less developmentally appropriate than playing with blocks or plastic gears. For a 4-year-old, watching action cartoons (or modern “PBS Kids” shows for that matter) is a lot less developmentally appropriate than watching Mr. Rogers episodes from 30 years ago. For a 7-year-old, spending time on a computer playing an unchallenging but flashy game is a lot less developmentally appropriate than figuring out how to make a Logo turtle draw a picture. Etc. This isn’t to say that children should never ever play with flashy things, but access should be moderated by parents so they don’t crowd out other activities, because they can be highly addictive. One of the problems with screens is that the more hyperstimulating e.g. a game or show is, the more likely someone is to pick it vs. alternatives, which means that the medium in general tends towards distraction over meaningful content. This is not as big a problem with physical books. Even e.g. popup books and comic books are nowhere near the level of stimulation of a TV or smartphone. Same goes for non-electrified physical toys
    - Misdicorl 7y ago
      I think you make an important point here and I wish your top content weren't greyed out. That said, I think my point that the devil is in the content remains with the additional important note that screens enable new types of particularly dangerous content. That may in fact be a more important point than mine and thus bolster the original decision to study screen time specifically.
ujjjujjj 7y ago
There is a difference: Kids are really bad in learning from a screen and no one means with 'screen' a wikipedia article. screen = tv with tons of ads, basic entertainment, simple mobile games with tons of ads etc.
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  I think most people (parents) do not in fact distinguish between screen activities. In particular, games are bucketed into the same box as tv regardless of the game. I'm not aware of any studies indicating learning something from a webpage is any less effective than learning it from a book. I'd be interested to see studies targeting that. Even more so if it had breakdowns by age

riffraff 7y ago

Pedagogy is hard, but I am inclined to agree. But it's really easy to put a kid in front of some cartoon and forget about them, they'll re-watch the same thing over and over and over, lacking interaction, competition and surprise. So "screen time" is probably a good enough proxy for "passive screen time", which would be bad by your definition too.

Misdicorl 7y ago
Yes of course it's important to note that screens are huge enablers of passive consumption. But the way we name things is important. Calling it passive consumption yields all sorts of interesting questions. Is the sickness of Facebook/Instagram any different from that of Netflix/YouTube? How about than Fox news? Does it actually matter what age you are? How much is bad? Does live theater count? What about a concert? Parents deserve the nuanced result/questions when deciding what is right for their children and selves (if indeed my supposition is correct ish). Calling it screen time is lazy science until it is shown to be unique to screens (which would be an immense surprise to me)
- satyrnein 7y ago
  I would have thought Facebook contained interaction, competition, and surprise, for better or worse.
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    Only if you're publishing a lot. I think most users mostly just scroll through their feed. Nonetheless I see your point. Perhaps there is an interesting distinction! Maybe worth investigating, and not particularly suggested by a 'screens are bad' line of thinking
- teunispeters 7y ago
  related: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39354-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39354-4

andrepd 7y ago

Since you've "figured it out" I assume you have done a complete study to come to that conclusion? Otherwise your hunch is as good as mine.

Misdicorl 7y ago
I've certainly not figured it out, but I think I'm allowed to make criticisms of a study and how it's reported. And further to describe what I think is a reasonable guess at the underlying cause. It's likely my guess is incomplete or even wrong. But I think it's even more likely that screens are a bogeyman.

teunispeters 7y ago

I seem to have read a number of reports confirming that list. Challenge - but not overwhelming challenge - is really good for minds. All ages. And a passive screen does not challenge anyone ... without real world interaction...

Misdicorl 7y ago
Yes challenge is much better suited than surprise in this list. Thank you

Reedx 7y ago

Right. The brain is like a muscle, and if it's not being engaged or challenged, then what would you expect? You could replace these studies with: "Not using the brain is bad for the brain." The screen itself is basically a red herring. What's on the screen matters. There's a big difference between interacting with a puzzle or strategy game and passively consuming a video, for example.

agumonkey 7y ago
The thing is your brain is 'stimulated' but not deep enough or the right way. So everybody feels attracted to it.

jacobolus 7y ago

> not the lack of blinken lights I can’t agree with this. Stimulating lights and sounds which distract attention and make it more difficult to focus on a problem or task are actively getting in the way of learning.

Misdicorl 7y ago
You're describing a situation where the screen is a secondary activity in the background. A conversation by adults could be just as distracting and yet you hopefully wouldn't advise that adults conversing is harmful to childhood development
- jacobolus 7y ago
  No I am talking about the media itself being overstimulating in a way irrelevant to what the medium is capable of teaching or what the media is intended to teach. For a 2-year-old, playing with a toy with a bunch of buttons that blink lights and make sounds is a lot less developmentally appropriate than playing with blocks or plastic gears. For a 4-year-old, watching action cartoons (or modern “PBS Kids” shows for that matter) is a lot less developmentally appropriate than watching Mr. Rogers episodes from 30 years ago. For a 7-year-old, spending time on a computer playing an unchallenging but flashy game is a lot less developmentally appropriate than figuring out how to make a Logo turtle draw a picture. Etc. This isn’t to say that children should never ever play with flashy things, but access should be moderated by parents so they don’t crowd out other activities, because they can be highly addictive. One of the problems with screens is that the more hyperstimulating e.g. a game or show is, the more likely someone is to pick it vs. alternatives, which means that the medium in general tends towards distraction over meaningful content. This is not as big a problem with physical books. Even e.g. popup books and comic books are nowhere near the level of stimulation of a TV or smartphone. Same goes for non-electrified physical toys
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    I think you make an important point here and I wish your top content weren't greyed out. That said, I think my point that the devil is in the content remains with the additional important note that screens enable new types of particularly dangerous content. That may in fact be a more important point than mine and thus bolster the original decision to study screen time specifically.

ujjjujjj 7y ago

There is a difference: Kids are really bad in learning from a screen and no one means with 'screen' a wikipedia article. screen = tv with tons of ads, basic entertainment, simple mobile games with tons of ads etc.

Misdicorl 7y ago
I think most people (parents) do not in fact distinguish between screen activities. In particular, games are bucketed into the same box as tv regardless of the game. I'm not aware of any studies indicating learning something from a webpage is any less effective than learning it from a book. I'd be interested to see studies targeting that. Even more so if it had breakdowns by age