3 ms·

It's like once people have children something flips in their brains and they become unable to think rationally about perceived dangers. Screens are not bad. Sc

It's like once people have children something flips in their brains and they become unable to think rationally about perceived dangers. Screens are not bad. Screens display things. What is on the screen and how the child is interacting with that defines what is good or bad. Screens just are. And re: this study, when I was a kid in the 90s I used my screens to read books (and still do). It's not either or when it comes to books and screens.

satyrnein 7y ago
Do you think the AAP recommends a limit of one hour of screen time because parents are unable to think rationally? I personally am a little skeptical that these studies have no confounding factors, but I don't think it's fair to blame parents for what doctors, researchers, and clickbait authors are saying.
- superkuh 7y ago
  There's few groups more in the thrall of the irrational desires of parents than the American Academy of Pediatrics.
  - satyrnein 7y ago
    I don't understand the incentives or mechanism here. Let's assume you are correct, and parents irrationally fear screens (and many other things). Then what, the AAP issues guidelines based on what parents already fear? Then they conduct studies and what? Fudge the results? I'm having trouble connecting the dots. If it's anything like this, it still seems like doctors are more guilty than parents. They're supposed to be the experts.
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      Here's a theory. The parents don't irrationally fear screens on their own, but they are very susceptible to being told to fear them especially by a seemingly credible source. Now that they fear them, they are grateful to the organization that warned them. Grateful parents are key to funding. Organizations (and doctors, as you note) have a real incentive to conveying to parents things that parents subsequently find to be valuable, "action item" information. In other words, they are biased toward making themselves seem important. I don't think they necessarily "fudge" the results, but they can certainly avoid going out of their way to think of how such results might be biased toward "useful data".

satyrnein 7y ago

Do you think the AAP recommends a limit of one hour of screen time because parents are unable to think rationally? I personally am a little skeptical that these studies have no confounding factors, but I don't think it's fair to blame parents for what doctors, researchers, and clickbait authors are saying.

superkuh 7y ago
There's few groups more in the thrall of the irrational desires of parents than the American Academy of Pediatrics.
- satyrnein 7y ago
  I don't understand the incentives or mechanism here. Let's assume you are correct, and parents irrationally fear screens (and many other things). Then what, the AAP issues guidelines based on what parents already fear? Then they conduct studies and what? Fudge the results? I'm having trouble connecting the dots. If it's anything like this, it still seems like doctors are more guilty than parents. They're supposed to be the experts.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    Here's a theory. The parents don't irrationally fear screens on their own, but they are very susceptible to being told to fear them especially by a seemingly credible source. Now that they fear them, they are grateful to the organization that warned them. Grateful parents are key to funding. Organizations (and doctors, as you note) have a real incentive to conveying to parents things that parents subsequently find to be valuable, "action item" information. In other words, they are biased toward making themselves seem important. I don't think they necessarily "fudge" the results, but they can certainly avoid going out of their way to think of how such results might be biased toward "useful data".