3 ms·

Are you literally using personal anecdotes to invalidate data-driven research? What controls did you have in your ‘study’?

lern_too_spel 3y ago
No, I'm using data driven research to invalidate improperly analyzed data driven research. I pointed to research that shows that banning screen time is wrong for older kids, and I've pointed to this very paper, which says that it can't rule out that it is good for very young children when used properly. Why are you so insistent on ignoring the article? I presented the anecdotes because they are the only evidence I know of that does control for parental negligence in screen time for very young children.
- in_cahoots 3y ago
  On average, 4+ hours of screen time has a negative effect on babies. That’s what the article is claiming and nothing you’ve said invalidates it. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up older kids here or citing your own anecdotes (which again aren’t research no matter how hard you dress it up). But I seriously doubt the kids you cited are under 2, and even if they are there’s no way of knowing the other detrimental effects- how good is their socialization? Their eyesight? How do we know they wouldn’t learn how to read anyway with dedicated parents and books? Those questions are what makes something research and not anecdotes. And again, 1-2 is very different than under 12 months. Can you give any examples of ‘high-quality’ screen time in babies? I know “Ms. Rachel” is popular but I don’t know of any research backing that up. What outcomes are you measuring?
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    > On average, 4+ hours of screen time has a negative effect on babies. That's not what the study showed. It showed that on average, 4+ hours of screen time for babies is correlated with a negative outcome. Would you also say that on average, ice cream sales has a large effect on shark attacks? Then why do you insist on ignoring the actual causal effect between parental neglect and high screen time and poor educational outcomes? > How do we know they wouldn’t learn how to read anyway with dedicated parents and books? [etc.] You're holding my anecdotes to a higher standard than the research you're citing. How do we know these neglected children wouldn't be equally impaired had they not been put in front of a screen? > Can you give any examples of ‘high-quality’ screen time in babies? I already did under this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37222954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37222954). Children younger than one can start to learn to read from apps that help them learn letter sounds and associate words with pictures and actually read at age 1.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

No, I'm using data driven research to invalidate improperly analyzed data driven research. I pointed to research that shows that banning screen time is wrong for older kids, and I've pointed to this very paper, which says that it can't rule out that it is good for very young children when used properly. Why are you so insistent on ignoring the article? I presented the anecdotes because they are the only evidence I know of that does control for parental negligence in screen time for very young children.

in_cahoots 3y ago
On average, 4+ hours of screen time has a negative effect on babies. That’s what the article is claiming and nothing you’ve said invalidates it. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up older kids here or citing your own anecdotes (which again aren’t research no matter how hard you dress it up). But I seriously doubt the kids you cited are under 2, and even if they are there’s no way of knowing the other detrimental effects- how good is their socialization? Their eyesight? How do we know they wouldn’t learn how to read anyway with dedicated parents and books? Those questions are what makes something research and not anecdotes. And again, 1-2 is very different than under 12 months. Can you give any examples of ‘high-quality’ screen time in babies? I know “Ms. Rachel” is popular but I don’t know of any research backing that up. What outcomes are you measuring?
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  > On average, 4+ hours of screen time has a negative effect on babies. That's not what the study showed. It showed that on average, 4+ hours of screen time for babies is correlated with a negative outcome. Would you also say that on average, ice cream sales has a large effect on shark attacks? Then why do you insist on ignoring the actual causal effect between parental neglect and high screen time and poor educational outcomes? > How do we know they wouldn’t learn how to read anyway with dedicated parents and books? [etc.] You're holding my anecdotes to a higher standard than the research you're citing. How do we know these neglected children wouldn't be equally impaired had they not been put in front of a screen? > Can you give any examples of ‘high-quality’ screen time in babies? I already did under this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37222954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37222954). Children younger than one can start to learn to read from apps that help them learn letter sounds and associate words with pictures and actually read at age 1.