3 ms·
And by the time my toddler was 18 months she could count to 16, but we don't watch TV. Your kid may have done that anyway if provided the same stimulation by ot
by Jem 15y ago
And by the time my toddler was 18 months she could count to 16, but we don't watch TV. Your kid may have done that anyway if provided the same stimulation by other means. It's not a reason in itself to watch TV.
- periferral 15y agoAnd its not a reason to not. If the kids can pick up ABCs/Numbers while watching 1/2 hr of TV or 1/2 hr of you working hands on with them, doesn't change anything. So advocating no TV is a poor reason in this particular case. I think we all agree there is a healthy balance to be met.
- mark242 15y ago"If the kids can pick up ABCs/Numbers while watching 1/2 hr of TV or 1/2 hr of you working hands on with them, doesn't change anything." I really hope you didn't just say that there's no difference in learning between talking with your kid, or having them zone out in front of the tv.
- periferral 15y agoI can see how my message would mean that, since I wanted my point to be brief. I spend a lot of time reading to my kids and playing with them. I've seen how much they pick up that way. However, I haven't come across a book or way to hold my 2 yr old's attention to get them to learn ABCs and their sounds. She loves to read and see pictures and point at things but she isn't learning letters that way. She watches about 15-20 mins of Leapfrog: Letter Factory and I was amazed how quickly she started recognizing her letters. I'm not suggesting TV is a replacement to reading but rather than another medium of learning is a tool that can be leveraged. Also my point was more towards the article headline (less so the content) in general where a blanket statement like 'watching TV = bad for infants'. Rather we should find a balance between reading, music, outside play and even TV.