6 ms·

Dubious at best. If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. And sc

Dubious at best. If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. And screen time is as addictive to children as it is to adults, and we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.

evilduck 3y ago
I have children and do not notice this. What you want to be true isn’t necessarily universal.
- SirMaster 3y ago
  Nobody is saying it applies to every child. But if it affects enough of them then it's a problem worth looking into.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    GP did make a blanket statement
  - evilduck 3y ago
    Isn’t looking into it exactly what they did with the 12,000 kids in the study linked? OP’s kid could have major depression for all we know, their anecdotes about their kids being extrapolated to all kids is absurd.
    - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
      We shouldn't confuse observation with cause. If the OP genuinely observed such changes in behavior, then that's different than ascribing a direct cause to screen time. Perhaps some children respond differently. Perhaps other factors play out by means of screen time. Perhaps what their kids are doing on their phones is different (we shouldn't forget the affect of the content on the screen). Who knows, and from a parenting point of view, it may not matter all that much when deciding what to do. If reducing screen time improves symptoms, then that's a good start, at least.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. I have children and the relationship is much more complicated with them. There is a danger in overgeneralization from anecdotal evidence. > we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains. Strange line to use dismissing research into that exact topic.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  > There is a danger in overgeneralization from anecdotal evidence. There is, and there is likewise the danger of overgeneralizing from scientific studies. That is, even if the study has been conducted without error, we must correctly understand what the measurements used were, how they relate to observable phenomena, and what they entail. A study may make a very modest claim about something really quite specific, but it is easy to misinterpret the actual results and overinfer what they entail. Ergo, it may very well be the case that the OP has observed increased agitation with screen time, and this need not contradict the study, and vice versa. But we must always remember that what is observed takes precedence. If you observe a genuine correlation between screen time and misbehavior personally, it makes more sense to go with what you have observed rather than the study. To quote Chico Marx facetiously, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?".
vidarh 3y ago
Not noticed any agitation from it at all.
sam0x17 3y ago
Depends what's on the screen
nevinera 3y ago
When science doesn't match your personal observations, that doesn't make the science wrong. It also doesn't make your personal observations wrong - it usually (in my experience) means that you're measuring/observing different things (assuming you're reasonably intelligent, which I am doing). In this case, "cognitive development and well being" are complex concepts that probably do not map exactly (or maybe even grossly) between their definitions in the study and their experiential meanings in your head. My personal observation is that "screen time" is not the problem, but lack of interaction _is_ - letting the kids be in front of a screen for two hours doesn't cause a problem, but letting that be an excuse not to spend time with them or interact with them (which is when it usually ends up happening in large quantities) does. Essentially - you need to control the other variables to understand what's really going on; excessive screen time is generally a symptom and not a cause.
- nevinera 3y ago
  And of course, talking about all of this as if 'screen time' is all the same is _insane_. Anyone that thinks watching youtubers screech at each other for hours is equivalent (for the purposes of mental development) to watching an adapted Broadway musical has not put any thought into the topic, and that's entirely setting aside the topic of interactive vs passive entertainment being lumped together.. But hopefully the strategy of "just let the kids blend it all together and hope it washes out in the statistics" is a good enough method -.-
- upsidesinclude 3y ago
  Not "wrong", dubious. It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious. Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite. Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'
  - nevinera 3y ago
    If you'd like to analyze their approaches to call the study 'dubious', I won't argue with you (it is; they are not strong ones). But making that assertion solely on the position that your personal observations of your own children disagree puts you in the same category as my wife's friend that rejects vaccines because her mom took one and still got covid. That's not how individual observations interact with science.
babyshake 3y ago
I can cite plenty of anecdotal evidence of what seems to be addiction. Major temper tantrums and hyperventilating when screens are taken away. Not to mention, zoning out for an hour or two watching unboxing videos or whatever on YouTube.
- chefandy 3y ago
  > I can cite plenty of anecdotal evidence of what seems to be addiction. Major temper tantrums and hyperventilating when screens are taken away. But might kids who never had access to screens react similarly if you took away their prized Legos, comic books, bike, art supplies, or other immersive toy? It doesn't seem like dramatic temper tantrums over losing a prized activity are new,and neither do obsessions over objects or activities.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    To me, growing up, my computer was the tool I used to access almost all of my interests and much of my social contact. Taking away my screen time would've been the equivalent of locking me in my room without any toys or access to any social contact. I find it bizarre that people think tantrums if they take away a basic tool is evidence of anything. That does of course not mean that it's not sometimes an indication that some kids are relying on it too much, but the level of reasoning on this subject seems to regularly be mired in hyperbole.
maxk42 3y ago
Just throwing in to back you up: My child becomes unresponsive to most inputs that would ordinarily motivate him (e.g. "Would you like a cookie?") after a certain amount of screentime and becomes pronouncedly agitated should you try to limit screen time (e.g. "It's time to go to school in five minutes. You have to pause the show by then." Cue literal wailing and crying.) When screen time is limited to brief periods (< ~90 minutes) these problems do not manifest.
Jensson 3y ago
> notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time That is negative for the parents state of mind, not the child's cognitive development. > And screen time is as addictive to children Being addicted to an activity doesn't necessarily hurt your cognitive development.
- tanseydavid 3y ago
  >> Being addicted to an activity doesn't necessarily hurt your cognitive development. This kind of minimizing is a standard part of how addicts rationalize their behavior to themselves. Oftentimes it is not directly the addictive behavior that is the major problem. Instead the primary problem for many addicts winds up being all of the things that they ARE NOT doing while they engage in their addiction.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    But screen time involves an extremely diverse set of activities, you aren't addicted to a single thing you are just addicted to efficiency. Not sure why that would necessarily be bad, efficiency helps you get the information you need or want faster. Another activity that is efficient is driving a car instead of walking. Do you ban cars for your kid and force it to walk for an hour to school? If not, why do you think one kind of efficiency is fine but not the other? Surely walking to school would be way more positive on your child than banning screens? I'm sure your kid would scream and complain if you forced the kid to walk everywhere, because the kid knows there is an easier way and that will limit the activities and experiences the kid can partake in. If you live in a non-car centric area just think public transit instead of cars, banning efficiency works the same.
28304283409234 3y ago
Father of two. Can confirm. Also consider the dozens of kids I have had to deal with in my home over the years. Screens are poison.

evilduck 3y ago

I have children and do not notice this. What you want to be true isn’t necessarily universal.

SirMaster 3y ago
Nobody is saying it applies to every child. But if it affects enough of them then it's a problem worth looking into.
- vidarh 3y ago
  GP did make a blanket statement
- evilduck 3y ago
  Isn’t looking into it exactly what they did with the 12,000 kids in the study linked? OP’s kid could have major depression for all we know, their anecdotes about their kids being extrapolated to all kids is absurd.
  - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
    We shouldn't confuse observation with cause. If the OP genuinely observed such changes in behavior, then that's different than ascribing a direct cause to screen time. Perhaps some children respond differently. Perhaps other factors play out by means of screen time. Perhaps what their kids are doing on their phones is different (we shouldn't forget the affect of the content on the screen). Who knows, and from a parenting point of view, it may not matter all that much when deciding what to do. If reducing screen time improves symptoms, then that's a good start, at least.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. I have children and the relationship is much more complicated with them. There is a danger in overgeneralization from anecdotal evidence. > we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains. Strange line to use dismissing research into that exact topic.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
> There is a danger in overgeneralization from anecdotal evidence. There is, and there is likewise the danger of overgeneralizing from scientific studies. That is, even if the study has been conducted without error, we must correctly understand what the measurements used were, how they relate to observable phenomena, and what they entail. A study may make a very modest claim about something really quite specific, but it is easy to misinterpret the actual results and overinfer what they entail. Ergo, it may very well be the case that the OP has observed increased agitation with screen time, and this need not contradict the study, and vice versa. But we must always remember that what is observed takes precedence. If you observe a genuine correlation between screen time and misbehavior personally, it makes more sense to go with what you have observed rather than the study. To quote Chico Marx facetiously, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?".

vidarh 3y ago

Not noticed any agitation from it at all.

sam0x17 3y ago

Depends what's on the screen

nevinera 3y ago

When science doesn't match your personal observations, that doesn't make the science wrong. It also doesn't make your personal observations wrong - it usually (in my experience) means that you're measuring/observing different things (assuming you're reasonably intelligent, which I am doing). In this case, "cognitive development and well being" are complex concepts that probably do not map exactly (or maybe even grossly) between their definitions in the study and their experiential meanings in your head. My personal observation is that "screen time" is not the problem, but lack of interaction _is_ - letting the kids be in front of a screen for two hours doesn't cause a problem, but letting that be an excuse not to spend time with them or interact with them (which is when it usually ends up happening in large quantities) does. Essentially - you need to control the other variables to understand what's really going on; excessive screen time is generally a symptom and not a cause.

nevinera 3y ago
And of course, talking about all of this as if 'screen time' is all the same is _insane_. Anyone that thinks watching youtubers screech at each other for hours is equivalent (for the purposes of mental development) to watching an adapted Broadway musical has not put any thought into the topic, and that's entirely setting aside the topic of interactive vs passive entertainment being lumped together.. But hopefully the strategy of "just let the kids blend it all together and hope it washes out in the statistics" is a good enough method -.-
upsidesinclude 3y ago
Not "wrong", dubious. It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious. Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite. Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'
- nevinera 3y ago
  If you'd like to analyze their approaches to call the study 'dubious', I won't argue with you (it is; they are not strong ones). But making that assertion solely on the position that your personal observations of your own children disagree puts you in the same category as my wife's friend that rejects vaccines because her mom took one and still got covid. That's not how individual observations interact with science.

babyshake 3y ago

I can cite plenty of anecdotal evidence of what seems to be addiction. Major temper tantrums and hyperventilating when screens are taken away. Not to mention, zoning out for an hour or two watching unboxing videos or whatever on YouTube.

chefandy 3y ago
> I can cite plenty of anecdotal evidence of what seems to be addiction. Major temper tantrums and hyperventilating when screens are taken away. But might kids who never had access to screens react similarly if you took away their prized Legos, comic books, bike, art supplies, or other immersive toy? It doesn't seem like dramatic temper tantrums over losing a prized activity are new,and neither do obsessions over objects or activities.
- vidarh 3y ago
  To me, growing up, my computer was the tool I used to access almost all of my interests and much of my social contact. Taking away my screen time would've been the equivalent of locking me in my room without any toys or access to any social contact. I find it bizarre that people think tantrums if they take away a basic tool is evidence of anything. That does of course not mean that it's not sometimes an indication that some kids are relying on it too much, but the level of reasoning on this subject seems to regularly be mired in hyperbole.

maxk42 3y ago

Just throwing in to back you up: My child becomes unresponsive to most inputs that would ordinarily motivate him (e.g. "Would you like a cookie?") after a certain amount of screentime and becomes pronouncedly agitated should you try to limit screen time (e.g. "It's time to go to school in five minutes. You have to pause the show by then." Cue literal wailing and crying.) When screen time is limited to brief periods (< ~90 minutes) these problems do not manifest.

Jensson 3y ago

> notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time That is negative for the parents state of mind, not the child's cognitive development. > And screen time is as addictive to children Being addicted to an activity doesn't necessarily hurt your cognitive development.

tanseydavid 3y ago
>> Being addicted to an activity doesn't necessarily hurt your cognitive development. This kind of minimizing is a standard part of how addicts rationalize their behavior to themselves. Oftentimes it is not directly the addictive behavior that is the major problem. Instead the primary problem for many addicts winds up being all of the things that they ARE NOT doing while they engage in their addiction.
- Jensson 3y ago
  But screen time involves an extremely diverse set of activities, you aren't addicted to a single thing you are just addicted to efficiency. Not sure why that would necessarily be bad, efficiency helps you get the information you need or want faster. Another activity that is efficient is driving a car instead of walking. Do you ban cars for your kid and force it to walk for an hour to school? If not, why do you think one kind of efficiency is fine but not the other? Surely walking to school would be way more positive on your child than banning screens? I'm sure your kid would scream and complain if you forced the kid to walk everywhere, because the kid knows there is an easier way and that will limit the activities and experiences the kid can partake in. If you live in a non-car centric area just think public transit instead of cars, banning efficiency works the same.

28304283409234 3y ago

Father of two. Can confirm. Also consider the dozens of kids I have had to deal with in my home over the years. Screens are poison.