To much tv?

[aquarius1994]

I'm chilling here with my 18 month old watching noddy on tv. Is that really so bad? He's been up since 6 (it's 9.20 now), we have played and read books and he's a bit ratty so I figured a bit of tv is ok

I always hear people going on about how bad screen time is but in the 80s when I was a kid, I watched lots of tv and I'm fine and so are various other people my age, so what's the big deal

Watching TV and playing with screens as a baby and/or toddler has a proven negative effect on language development, brain development and attention. A long with possible other negative effects concerning behaviour.

While opinions vary for children from around 2 years of age, scientists across different fields agree that before the age of 2 children should have no screen time whatsoever.

And saying it didn't effect you or your peers is nonsense. In order to be able to say that, you'd have to compare this with yourself in another dimension, in which everything is the same, except the TV part.

Watching TV and playing with screens as a baby and/or toddler has a proven negative effect on language development, brain development and attention

No, there is no causative data to suggest that, there is correlative data, but of course "good parents" are always told they you don't let babies and toddlers have screens, so the only parents doing it are " bad parents" - ones who are probably "bad" in lots of other ways too.

To actually find out, we'd need some proper testing of the hypothesis, and controlling for the good/bad parent would be difficult anyway, it might be true, but there is certainly not the evidence to support your dogmatic assertion.

Oh gosh, it’ll be fine, OP. As long as you’re playing with and talking to your kid, doing a few different things, trundling then around the park and all that good stuff, some TV really isn’t going to make a difference.

And saying it didn't effect you or your peers is nonsense. In order to be able to say that, you'd have to compare this with yourself in another dimension, in which everything is the same, except the TV part.*

This rather snotty response inadvertently reveals the very problem with research into the effect of screen usage on normal brain development. It really is much more complex than “scientists in different fields agree”.

For a variety of reasons it’s extremely difficult to design a large scale, balanced and controlled study to investigate this matter. For example, as the PP points out, it’s impossible to compare someone who has watched a lot of TV with exactly that same person who hasn’t. So you have to look at a lot of different children, and although there are certain behaviours that seem to be related to increased screen usage at the age of 2 (eg ADHD by age 7) it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to ensure that this isn’t as a result of other factors such as poverty, parental stress, parenting style, relationships in the home and so on. For this reason more recent research acknowledges that it’s impossible to establish firm causality (i.e. a definite link) between early TV and later behavioural problems.

The research into older kids playing video games becomes even more fascinating. I read a study recently in which the researcher studied the effect of high game usage on the brain. She expected to find a detrimental effect but in fact found quite the opposite (for example an improvement in spatial navigation and attention skills). But again it’s too early to establish a definite link.

All that aside, a relaxed happy mum whose kid watches a bit of TV sounds just fine.

"good parents" are always told they you don't let babies and toddlers have screens, so the only parents doing it are " bad parents"

Yes, this tends to be the media interpretation of the research. There certainly isn’t a lack of articles telling parents that dear little Jimmy will turn into a basket case in later life if you show him half an hour of Tellytubbies at any time before his 2nd birthday. It all seems designed to make parents feel like crap!

"No, there is no causative data to suggest that,"

That's just wrong. There is research into how screens affect a young brain, how a child's language develops, how watching a TV or having a TV on in the background affects communication between parents and children and how cuts and the change of sceens in programmes affect attention and concentration.

"there is correlative data [...] To actually find out, we'd need some proper testing of the hypothesis, and controlling for the good/bad parent would be difficult anyway, it might be true, but there is certainly not the evidence to support your dogmatic assertion."

I have to disappoint you, but of course that's been done. Do you seriously think the scientists conducting research simply haven't thought that maybe other things in a child's daily life, except the TV, might affect it's development?

"It really is much more complex than “scientists in different fields agree”."

No, actually it's not. These are people who studied in their respective fields for years, they are experts in their areas and doing research like this is their job. If close to 100% of those dealing with this topic agree on something, you should simply believe it.

I think it's quite arrogant and - frankly, stupid for a "normal" person to claim that this research is wrong, arguing that the scientists conducting that research haven't taken into account the most obvious of things, use some personal stories like "I did that, everything is fine" as "arguments" against it, pretend like all those scientists just want to scare people and make them feel bad (for whatever reason, probably they are being paid by someone to say that) and then give advice to other people based on that, being convinced they are much smarter than the people who do this for a living.

This puts you in a league along with anti-vaxxers and manmade climate change deniers.

@SmartPlay. I’m in academia. I understand how research works.

Could you link to the research that proves causation (as opposed to correlation) please? And also the research that “close to 100% of those dealing with this topic agree on”. Thanks.

"I’m in academia. I understand how research works."

That doesn't change anything about what I wrote, wich is that you assume the people cunducting this reasearch are too stupid to take obvious factors into account.

"Could you link to the research that proves causation (as opposed to correlation) please? And also the research that “close to 100% of those dealing with this topic agree on”. Thanks."

Sure, I'll see if I can find anything online.
In the meantime, please link to the insufficient research you mentioned.

That doesn't change anything about what I wrote, wich is that you assume the people cunducting this reasearch are too stupid to take obvious factors into account.

Where did I say anything about scientists being stupid? I absolutely said nothing of the kind. You completely misinterpreted my post and read something into it which wasn’t there at all. You seem very defensive and angry about being challenged on this topic.

Asking me to link to insufficient research makes absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion. It’s not a question of research being sufficient or insufficient; it doesn’t work like that. People constantly publish papers and interesting new insights are gained from them - it’s not wrong or insufficient, it’s a big network or scientists studying different things from different perspectives. To be fair the media often misinterprets scientific research or simplifies the message massively to the point that the message is almost meaningless.

My post was based entirely on what brain scientists themselves have said about conducting this kind of research. If you google “the Dana foundation” and “the truth about screen time research” you’ll find a long article full of scientists who research screen time saying that we don’t really know what’s the impact of screen time is,
and that more and better research is needed. There are citations at the end of the article if I remember rightly.

You didn't SAY they were stupid, that's true, but yiu argued that the research is flawed because of several factors that would need to be taken into account.

And of course does my request for insufficient research make sense, since your argument, among other things, was that it's mainly based on correlation and not causation. So I'd like links to research that condemns screen time based on correlation while not taking into account the mentioned "bad parents vs. good parents".

Yes, those links are the citations at the bottom of the long article I sent. About 20 of them.

And your links?

You didn't send an article, you only mentioned one. Did you mean this: www.dana.org/briefing_papers/the_truth_about_research_on_screen_time/#_edn21 ?

If yes: This article is irrelevant to our discussion, since it's obviously about older children (talking about school, homework, computer games), not about babies and toddlers under 2.

I actually looked at one of the sources mentioned - #22. "While she says there is still much to learn about the impact of devices on the brain, it’s becoming clearer that considering the context and content of screen use is key to finding a healthy, happy medium. In her line of work, she says, you see just how differently kids are “wired.” As such, there can’t be a simple one-size-fits-all approach. The newest 2016 AAP guidelines try to reflect that."

Now, guess how these newest guidlines reflect that ... "For children younger than 18 months, avoid use of screen media other than video-chatting."

Bunch of idiots arguing and trying to outdo each other on my post 😕 nothing better to do on a Friday night then - what fun lives u lead

"Bunch of idiots arguing and trying to outdo each other on my post 😕 nothing better to do on a Friday night then - what fun lives u lead"

You've asked a question, wanting to know if something you do might be bad for your child.
There are users here who are trying to have a serious and evidence based discussion about the thing you worry about. You should be greatful instead of insulting us, you stupid little twat.

@SmartPlay stupid little twat? Very mature not!! I know I asked for advice but it seems to be getting a bit out of hand now

@aquarius1994 I spoke on your level, to make sure you understand :)

@Jillyhilly I've had a little time to look for research now and looked into language first (will try to find something on the effects on the brain at a later point, but don't have more time now).

Here is one about the background TV I mentioned and it's correlation to conversation between parents and children: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17482798.2014.920715

Can we agree that it is a known fact that children develop their language skills through interaction with real people, or do you want me to link research to that to?

Here is one about language delay and TV time. It's about correlation only, though: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365020/

But let's just, for the sake of the argument, say you are right, and there is not sufficient research that shows causation rather than correlation (which I don't agree with, btw). It would still be wrong to, based on this, say that a little TV now and then is fine, since there is not enough research to prove otherwise.
Even if there is no sufficient proof - considering that there is a very likely possibility that it may be harmful to several areas of a baby's and toddler's development, and considering that there is no indication that not letting a young child watch TV has any negative effects, shouldn't be the conclusion that it is absolutely right to advice against any screen time for that age, until possible harmful effects are disproven?

To say "as long as it is not 100% certain that it's harmful, you can as well do it", instead of saying "there is a very good chance that is harmful, so you should not do it until we know otherwise for certain" seems a bit like the difference between the EU and the USA in permitting new products like medicine. At least I've heard that's how it is .... anyway, according to my information, in the EU you have to prove a product is harmless, while in the USA it's fine until it's been proven that it's harmful.
What is safer for the "normal" population?

OP it's good to see both sides of this argument, no one is wrong. I'm with @jillyhilly on this, research and its interpretations by the media are problematic.

An anecdote; I'm a mother who allows her 3.5 year old DS screen time via tv and/or iPad most days (I work full time and he's with his Nan most days). My DS is 'ahead' of his cousins who are the same age (one older, one younger) yet they are not allowed any screen time, at all (I respect the choice of their parents fully). Also, they both go to nursery, DS starts in Sept (unfortunately we couldn't get a decent place for him before then). I paint this picture because it's obvious that screen time allowance is not the full story, and research cannot always adjust for that. My son also loves books (a lot!), he loves to play, we take him to classes, we take him on outings, I try to teach him bits blah blah blah. I can, hand on heart, say he has learned an awful lot from some of his screen time (certainly not all!). For example, Noddy actually taught my son all about investigating mysteries (he now creates mysteries to investigate during interactive play with his cousins, or with his toys alone) and some of the apps I have downloaded helps to reinforce the phonics I try to teach him, and it goes on etc etc. I will never know what he would have been without screen time, but I think 'detrimental effect' is too harsh a conclusion for him ...to date anyway. His screen time is about to drastically reduce once he starts nursery anyway, so we shall see.

"My DS is 'ahead' of his cousins who are the same age (one older, one younger) yet they are not allowed any screen time, at all [...] I paint this picture because it's obvious that screen time allowance is not the full story,"

Yes, obviously that's not the full story, since you can't just pick out two things and say there is a causation. There are a lot of reasons why some children are further ahead in some areas than others, one of them simply being: children develop differently.
My kids are/were ahead of most of their peers in some cognitive areas as well, and I wouldn't simply claim it's because they don't get any screen time ;) (just to be clear: I realise that you didn't claim a causation either!)