4 ms·

I see a lot of comments here saying that there are different types or qualities of screen time, but not one addressing the fact that this is a study of babies.

I see a lot of comments here saying that there are different types or qualities of screen time, but not one addressing the fact that this is a study of babies. Babies don’t play video games, solve puzzles, or interact with videos. Especially not for 4+ hours a day; even a 12-month old is only awake for 10-12 hours a day. It’s like people feel the need to defend their own beliefs instead of engaging with the article itself.

barbazoo 3y ago
Sounds like many didn't read the article at all. > It’s like people feel the need to defend their own beliefs I think so, and not only their beliefs but also their own addictions to screens. It's like every time something comes up about alcohol use. Same thing.
- ghusto 3y ago
  I'm heartened to read a few comments like yours. This sort of sentiment was being downvoted to oblivion not six months ago. "Oh, am I in that group that's deemed bad? To the rationalisation-mobile!"
lern_too_spel 3y ago
I have seen 1 and 2 year olds learn to read playing video games. I see no reason why a properly designed game wouldn't be able to help develop social skills as well. The study itself acknowledged this, saying, "a meta-analysis showed that greater screen use was associated with decreased language skills, whereas screen time spent on educational programs was associated with increased language skills," and, "A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time." You're right that babies won't be able to engage with games or puzzles for 4+ hours per day, but that is not what others in this thread are suggesting. The criticism I'm seeing is that a parent interested in educating their children shouldn't throw out all screen time just because most other parents use screen time poorly.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Are you sure they were 1/2-year-olds? Even learning to read at 3 is remarkably early, although some kids do.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    I have seen a 1 year old seeing a drawing and then correctly tapping the three letter CVC word (among four CVC words) that matches enough times in a row that I could reject the null hypothesis with near certainty. I have seen 2 year olds who had learned to verbally sound out words in games transfer that ability to read entire sentences and short books.
    - harperlee 3y ago
      To add to your point, albeit from memory, I read here some time ago on the topic of losing the diaper at 12 months, and one technique discussed was to introduce hand signals, as communication ability of kids comes /way/ earlier than the mouth coordination required to talk. So it stands to reason that if you don’t require the kid to read /aloud/, reading as pattern recognition can come earlier.
- in_cahoots 3y ago
  The meta analysis you’re citing covered children up to age 12, with a mean age of 35 months. Again, this study isn’t saying that all screen time is bad, just that it’s not good for babies (i.e younger than the 1-2 year olds you are sharing anecdotes for). Even the AAP allows for screen time after age 2. I’m not sure why people are bringing up irrelevant arguments instead of engaging with the article itself.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    > I’m not sure why people are bringing up irrelevant arguments instead of engaging with the article itself. As I pointed out, the article itself mentioned that similar studies showed that screen time was bad when they didn't control for the quality of screen time for older ages, which reversed when they did; and the article itself said that it was a problem with this study that it didn't. > Even the AAP allows for screen time after age 2. My anecdotes show that this recommendation is wrong. You can successfully use screen-based education before the age of 2.

barbazoo 3y ago

Sounds like many didn't read the article at all. > It’s like people feel the need to defend their own beliefs I think so, and not only their beliefs but also their own addictions to screens. It's like every time something comes up about alcohol use. Same thing.

ghusto 3y ago
I'm heartened to read a few comments like yours. This sort of sentiment was being downvoted to oblivion not six months ago. "Oh, am I in that group that's deemed bad? To the rationalisation-mobile!"

lern_too_spel 3y ago

I have seen 1 and 2 year olds learn to read playing video games. I see no reason why a properly designed game wouldn't be able to help develop social skills as well. The study itself acknowledged this, saying, "a meta-analysis showed that greater screen use was associated with decreased language skills, whereas screen time spent on educational programs was associated with increased language skills," and, "A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time." You're right that babies won't be able to engage with games or puzzles for 4+ hours per day, but that is not what others in this thread are suggesting. The criticism I'm seeing is that a parent interested in educating their children shouldn't throw out all screen time just because most other parents use screen time poorly.

spondylosaurus 3y ago
Are you sure they were 1/2-year-olds? Even learning to read at 3 is remarkably early, although some kids do.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  I have seen a 1 year old seeing a drawing and then correctly tapping the three letter CVC word (among four CVC words) that matches enough times in a row that I could reject the null hypothesis with near certainty. I have seen 2 year olds who had learned to verbally sound out words in games transfer that ability to read entire sentences and short books.
  - harperlee 3y ago
    To add to your point, albeit from memory, I read here some time ago on the topic of losing the diaper at 12 months, and one technique discussed was to introduce hand signals, as communication ability of kids comes /way/ earlier than the mouth coordination required to talk. So it stands to reason that if you don’t require the kid to read /aloud/, reading as pattern recognition can come earlier.
in_cahoots 3y ago
The meta analysis you’re citing covered children up to age 12, with a mean age of 35 months. Again, this study isn’t saying that all screen time is bad, just that it’s not good for babies (i.e younger than the 1-2 year olds you are sharing anecdotes for). Even the AAP allows for screen time after age 2. I’m not sure why people are bringing up irrelevant arguments instead of engaging with the article itself.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  > I’m not sure why people are bringing up irrelevant arguments instead of engaging with the article itself. As I pointed out, the article itself mentioned that similar studies showed that screen time was bad when they didn't control for the quality of screen time for older ages, which reversed when they did; and the article itself said that it was a problem with this study that it didn't. > Even the AAP allows for screen time after age 2. My anecdotes show that this recommendation is wrong. You can successfully use screen-based education before the age of 2.