3 ms·

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 hope

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.

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.