5 ms·

If it hadn't been for watching Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow at that age (c.1988), I wouldn't have been able to participate in the mind bending parlor trick

by Ryanmf 15y ago

If it hadn't been for watching Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow at that age (c.1988), I wouldn't have been able to participate in the mind bending parlor trick wherein my father handed his two year old son a box of cereal, and I promptly sounded out Maltodextrin (or whatever else). (And if I hadn't been that two year old, it's unlikely I'd be the voracious reader and passionate lexidweeb I am now. In fact, it's unlikely I'd even have the same brain, so to speak.) Now, my parents reading to me most every night (apparently even when I was in the womb) also had a tremendous effect, but when I was a kid my dad traveled for work upwards of 300 days a year. And my mom had to take care of everything else. So there wasn't always someone available to read to me, but Big Bird and Geordi LaForge were there every morning. Just sayin'. (If the point of that article wasn't "no TV under 2" but "no bullshit TV under 2," I agree, but I would ammend the statement to "no bullshit TV under 200," or simply "no bullshit.")

lwhi 15y ago
.. and I probably wouldn't know the alphabet ;)
ajross 15y ago
You're misreading the headline or misinterpreting your parents. When you were reading as a "two year old", they mean you were between your second and third birthday[1]. When the study says "No TV for infants under 2" they mean babies between birth and their second birthday. And the recommendation isn't about "bullshit" TV, it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't interacting with a human being and learning how to communiate. The studies correlating TV watching with delayed speech are very well supported. [1] Obviously it's likely you were closer to three. And knowing now how parental memories can, heh, embellish things, I strongly suspect that most of your most memorable reading tricks happened when you were, in fact, three.
- Ryanmf 15y ago
  As long as we're being pedantic: 1. The first word I ever sounded out on my own (at least in an adult's presence) was "Mobil"—from the sign above the gas station near our home in Glendale, CA. (Très Américain, non?) For all I know this was before I turned two. 2. Most of the "embellished" stories regarding my memorable reading tricks come from family members who joined us on a trip to Lake Tahoe in the winter of 88/89 and were astounded/terrified to see me reading things like the snack bar menu. This was beyond the point of sounding out "Mobil" or "Maltodextrin"—I could read the menu, I comprehended that apples were available, and I wanted one. 3. My 2nd birthday was in July of '88. So yes, I was between my second and third birthdays. But no, I wasn't closer to three, or "in fact, three."
  - ajross 15y ago
    I'm not intending insult your status as a prodigy. I'm just cautioning that you aren't interpreting the recommendation properly. One data point doesn't do much to disprove the existing studies that show a clear anticorrelation between speech development and screen time. Basically, you're saying essentially that parents should ignore clear science and let their kids watch ("non-bullshit") TV because you know a kid who watched a lot of TV and is really smart. That's bad science, and frankly it's bad parenting.
    - Ryanmf 15y ago
      Ugh—glad I'm in no way responsible for a potentially interesting discussion devolving into Yet Another Internet Dickwaving Match. Thanks for the downvotes, btw. /s If you want to interpret my decision to describe my admittedly statistically insignificant experience (which is directly related to the topic at hand) as an attempt to flaunt any sort of status, that's your own business. It isn't really your business to reinterpret the details of my personal life incorrectly to support your argument. I'm not "saying essentially" that parents (in particular the parents reading this right now) "should" do anything. As has already been addressed in the comments: 1. HN readers (parents or not) are not the target for this recommendation. (What else is new?) 2. Bad parents, or those who are inclined to make bad decisions as parents, might benefit more from advice along the lines of "You stop watching TV, and please get your shit together; alternately, don't have kids," rather than "No TV under n." 3. It's highly likely that the recommendations are intentionally rigid in order to have the strongest impact on those potentially bad parents. As it pertains to the messaging surrounding the AAP guidelines as reported by the NYT, a lot of it comes across as FUD, to me. For instance, "Secondhand TV" is just a ridiculous thing to say. Again, I'm not telling anyone do do anything. I am saying that while I don't intend to ignore this study, it's also far from the only data point I'll be taking into consideration as I conduct my own life. As it turns out, I'm usually the guy mocking people for disregarding science in favor of catchy anecdotal "evidence," "conventional wisdom," or semi-plausible, hippy-dippy alternatives. If my hypothetical future wife wants to play Baby Einstein or Mozart through her uterine wall for our hypothetical future fetus/infant, I'm going to have some questions about why we're doing that, or at least why we're not playing Ryuichi Sakamoto or The Doors instead. I would find plopping my (fingers crossed) future child down in front of a TV for extended periods unacceptable, regardless of what's playing. I also have some experience which indicates that not all screen viewing is detrimental, and I'll be taking that into account, whether or not it's a statistically defensible position. Ultimately, I'd hand an iPad (another one of those dangerous screens) running NodeBeat to my one-year-old without a second's hesitation, and I don't really give a shit what the AAP has to say about that. (edit: Okay, maybe at least a second's hesitation, but moreso for the physical safety of the child and the iPad, not due to concerns about hindering the development of the child's mind. The development of the child's mind is exactly why I would want him/her playing with NodeBeat, etc.)
- derekprior 15y ago
  "it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't ... learning how to communiate (sic)" Does sign language count as communication? Because my son learns signs from occasional DVD watching and then applies them in the proper contexts - sometimes without any reinforcement from his parents or anyone else. Pretty sure that qualifies as learning how to communicate.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Clearly I'm no expert, nor do I know if studies have been done on the effect of TV watching on ASL acquisition. I'll bet good money, however, that however many signs your <2yo son learns from watching a DVD, he would learn more from signing with you instead of passively watching the device. Which, for verbal speech, is exactly what the studies show.
    - derekprior 15y ago
      Maybe, but now you've changed your argument. Previously it was that they weren't learning at all, now they aren't learning as well. Even so, there are points in response: 1. I'm really not equipped to show him the multiple images of a coat or someone putting on a coat, or other children doing signs of coat. The video is. I don't know if this matters or not. It's certainly possible it doesn't. 2. I have to make dinner for us all at some point. As much as I'd love for my 15 month old to patiently engage in conversation with me while remaining a safe distance from the stovetop, it just doesn't happen. There are times when a parent's attention just cannot be 100%, or even 75% on their child. So yes, maybe he would learn EVERYTHING better if I were there to teach it to him, but the fact is that even the best parents can't be.
      - ajross 15y ago
        I've reread my posts, and don't see where I said children weren't learning. The science shows kids who watch TV speak later, period. Anecdotes (your kid learning some signs from a DVD, the earlier poster learning to read from TV) don't change that. Sorry, but they don't. As for point 2, I don't disagree at all. Everything is a tradeoff, no parent can be perfect. Most kids turn out fine anyway. If you have to give your kids TV (my 3 year old gets about two hours a week, for instance) then do so and don't feel guilty. But don't try to justify it as educational; the science disagrees.

by Ryanmf 15y ago

lwhi 15y ago

.. and I probably wouldn't know the alphabet ;)

ajross 15y ago

You're misreading the headline or misinterpreting your parents. When you were reading as a "two year old", they mean you were between your second and third birthday[1]. When the study says "No TV for infants under 2" they mean babies between birth and their second birthday. And the recommendation isn't about "bullshit" TV, it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't interacting with a human being and learning how to communiate. The studies correlating TV watching with delayed speech are very well supported. [1] Obviously it's likely you were closer to three. And knowing now how parental memories can, heh, embellish things, I strongly suspect that most of your most memorable reading tricks happened when you were, in fact, three.

Ryanmf 15y ago
As long as we're being pedantic: 1. The first word I ever sounded out on my own (at least in an adult's presence) was "Mobil"—from the sign above the gas station near our home in Glendale, CA. (Très Américain, non?) For all I know this was before I turned two. 2. Most of the "embellished" stories regarding my memorable reading tricks come from family members who joined us on a trip to Lake Tahoe in the winter of 88/89 and were astounded/terrified to see me reading things like the snack bar menu. This was beyond the point of sounding out "Mobil" or "Maltodextrin"—I could read the menu, I comprehended that apples were available, and I wanted one. 3. My 2nd birthday was in July of '88. So yes, I was between my second and third birthdays. But no, I wasn't closer to three, or "in fact, three."
- ajross 15y ago
  I'm not intending insult your status as a prodigy. I'm just cautioning that you aren't interpreting the recommendation properly. One data point doesn't do much to disprove the existing studies that show a clear anticorrelation between speech development and screen time. Basically, you're saying essentially that parents should ignore clear science and let their kids watch ("non-bullshit") TV because you know a kid who watched a lot of TV and is really smart. That's bad science, and frankly it's bad parenting.
  - Ryanmf 15y ago
    Ugh—glad I'm in no way responsible for a potentially interesting discussion devolving into Yet Another Internet Dickwaving Match. Thanks for the downvotes, btw. /s If you want to interpret my decision to describe my admittedly statistically insignificant experience (which is directly related to the topic at hand) as an attempt to flaunt any sort of status, that's your own business. It isn't really your business to reinterpret the details of my personal life incorrectly to support your argument. I'm not "saying essentially" that parents (in particular the parents reading this right now) "should" do anything. As has already been addressed in the comments: 1. HN readers (parents or not) are not the target for this recommendation. (What else is new?) 2. Bad parents, or those who are inclined to make bad decisions as parents, might benefit more from advice along the lines of "You stop watching TV, and please get your shit together; alternately, don't have kids," rather than "No TV under n." 3. It's highly likely that the recommendations are intentionally rigid in order to have the strongest impact on those potentially bad parents. As it pertains to the messaging surrounding the AAP guidelines as reported by the NYT, a lot of it comes across as FUD, to me. For instance, "Secondhand TV" is just a ridiculous thing to say. Again, I'm not telling anyone do do anything. I am saying that while I don't intend to ignore this study, it's also far from the only data point I'll be taking into consideration as I conduct my own life. As it turns out, I'm usually the guy mocking people for disregarding science in favor of catchy anecdotal "evidence," "conventional wisdom," or semi-plausible, hippy-dippy alternatives. If my hypothetical future wife wants to play Baby Einstein or Mozart through her uterine wall for our hypothetical future fetus/infant, I'm going to have some questions about why we're doing that, or at least why we're not playing Ryuichi Sakamoto or The Doors instead. I would find plopping my (fingers crossed) future child down in front of a TV for extended periods unacceptable, regardless of what's playing. I also have some experience which indicates that not all screen viewing is detrimental, and I'll be taking that into account, whether or not it's a statistically defensible position. Ultimately, I'd hand an iPad (another one of those dangerous screens) running NodeBeat to my one-year-old without a second's hesitation, and I don't really give a shit what the AAP has to say about that. (edit: Okay, maybe at least a second's hesitation, but moreso for the physical safety of the child and the iPad, not due to concerns about hindering the development of the child's mind. The development of the child's mind is exactly why I would want him/her playing with NodeBeat, etc.)
derekprior 15y ago
"it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't ... learning how to communiate (sic)" Does sign language count as communication? Because my son learns signs from occasional DVD watching and then applies them in the proper contexts - sometimes without any reinforcement from his parents or anyone else. Pretty sure that qualifies as learning how to communicate.
- ajross 15y ago
  Clearly I'm no expert, nor do I know if studies have been done on the effect of TV watching on ASL acquisition. I'll bet good money, however, that however many signs your <2yo son learns from watching a DVD, he would learn more from signing with you instead of passively watching the device. Which, for verbal speech, is exactly what the studies show.
  - derekprior 15y ago
    Maybe, but now you've changed your argument. Previously it was that they weren't learning at all, now they aren't learning as well. Even so, there are points in response: 1. I'm really not equipped to show him the multiple images of a coat or someone putting on a coat, or other children doing signs of coat. The video is. I don't know if this matters or not. It's certainly possible it doesn't. 2. I have to make dinner for us all at some point. As much as I'd love for my 15 month old to patiently engage in conversation with me while remaining a safe distance from the stovetop, it just doesn't happen. There are times when a parent's attention just cannot be 100%, or even 75% on their child. So yes, maybe he would learn EVERYTHING better if I were there to teach it to him, but the fact is that even the best parents can't be.
    - ajross 15y ago
      I've reread my posts, and don't see where I said children weren't learning. The science shows kids who watch TV speak later, period. Anecdotes (your kid learning some signs from a DVD, the earlier poster learning to read from TV) don't change that. Sorry, but they don't. As for point 2, I don't disagree at all. Everything is a tradeoff, no parent can be perfect. Most kids turn out fine anyway. If you have to give your kids TV (my 3 year old gets about two hours a week, for instance) then do so and don't feel guilty. But don't try to justify it as educational; the science disagrees.