So why is TV watching so bad?

kcisthebombdotcom

wife1014:

So what we learned here is that TV is the debil. If your kid watches it you suck and don't care about their brain development.  If you/your children watch TV it's because you are fat and/or uneducated.  And don't fool yourselves, as there is no such thing as educational programming.

I think the same people who allow their little ones to watch TV are the same uneducated horrible parents who will also turn their child forward facing before the age of 2.

 

Not only that, if your kid catches a millisecond of television before 2, their brain will be permanently damaged in a negative way. Way to rob your kid out of an ivy league education. They'll thank you for Mickey Mouse Clubhouse when they're failing out of community college in 18 years.

MNgirl326

KC_13:

abartow:

KC_13:

abartow:

KC_13:

abartow:

intheflowers:

abartow:

If you look back at my first post, I talked about the actual brain developement and what tv does to the neurons and receptors and that was regarding any technology exposure at all.

   And you can't just say that 22 minutes is all your child gets exposed to on a daily basis.  How often is the tv just on? the computer screen on?  phone, or ipad?  Does she see flashing billboards?  tv at stores?  it all adds up.

I am not saying kids shouldn't watch any tv.  I am just saying that it shouldn't be discounted as having negative effects. 

Yah, did we read the same books? There are a few good ones out there, I really liked "Bright From the Start: The Simple, Science-Backed Way to Nurture Your Child's Developing Mind from Birth to Age 3." 

I havne't read those.  I have a BA in  child psych and a MA in child developement and elementary education.  So, i have gotten the info from many many classes and lots of professional research.

I will check out the books though. I am always interested in reading up on what is out there on the mass markets for parents.

Not to be snarky, but it baffles me that with your level of education you'd make this statement:

 They are actually finding now that many kids with ADHD have actually have sensory, reflex, visual, and auditory issues, which is all stuff that is developed by the brain before the age of 2.

I just have a measly BA in child psych and know this isn't true.

I guess I will just throw the huge binder of information  from the week long seminar I just took last week  on what to do with kids who have sensory, auditory, visual and reflex problems away then, espeically the chapter that talks about mis-diagnosis of ADHD.   And all the other professional journals, text books, other information from seminars i have taken over the years too.  I guess the information given to me by scientists, teachers, and doctors was a lot of bunk. 

Okay, whatevs.  You win.

 

 

 

You clearly have no idea what I'm saying, since I agree that ADHD is misdiagnosed and that sensory/auditory/visual issues should be diagnosed and worked with at a young age (ie under the age of 3).

I just hate when people throw around that they're educated so therefore, they're correct.

A theory in child development =/= indisputable fact.

Correlation =/= causation.

1. brain development (ie neurons and receptors) in not a theory, it is a fact

2. I didn't say I was super educated and therefore I was correct, I gave my the information I have learned from classes I have taken.  I didn't throw out my education level until the end when someone else asked about what books I have read.  I never once said that i knew it all.   I am just frustrated that you don't seem to give me any credit for anything that i may have learned. 

3.  I know correlataion =/= causation.  I even said that the examples given of kids who do and do not watch tv can be all coincidences.  But I am also saying, maybe its not.  So therefore as parents, lets not just throw out the information, but instead file it under good information to know and just beware of it.

 Also KC- i don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye on this.  So lets just agree to disagree and move on.  i have stuff to do today and can't spend the rest of the day arguing this. 

I actually agree with a lot of what you say, especially about the overdiagnosis of ADHD and false diagnoses when the underlying issue is sensory.

I also don't think parents should be unaware of why TV is considered harmful.

You lost me when you said it's a fact that TV has a negative impact on the brain and kids under 2 can't handle it while kids over 2 can. That isn't factual information. I think ADHD/ADD exists more today not because of TV under 2, but because of overdiagnosis, genetic predisposition, kids who are exposed to TV are likely hearing less language, etc. You gave a great example of SES and language development. Couldn't those delays be caused by parents not talking to their kids as much and not the TV itself? Couldn't ADHD/ADD be caused not from TV, but because of the diet people in lower SES have? It's not necessarily TV=negative influence and puts kids at risk for things like developmental delays/ADHD.

I like educating parents about the theories and being aware TV doesnt have any educational purpose, but I don't like people giving theories out as fact.

actually I said that.  I said it was a combo of many factors and tv was one of them. 

Also, I never said that children can't watch any tv or that tv shouldn't be ever on.  I have said all along, that it is part of our culture and it is everywhere.  Whether we like it or not.   i just think it was one of those things that people don't  want to admit could be a negative influence.  If you are saying that it can't be proved as a cause then you are also saying it can't be proved as not a cause.   

And who says how much is not going to negatively effect vs too much is too much.  Is 22 minutes okay, but 30 minutes too much?  Why not just admit that it is a there are times that convenience wins, and you are willing to risk the minor effects that tv might have.  

And as for the brain development part.  this is a fact i will repeat- There are 12 stages to developement.  the first 7 are 0-24 months.  It is in  these first 7 stages that the neurons are formed and it is decided how they are going to be wired.    Therefore, yes, the first 2 years are the most important and children over the age of 2 can handle things that children under the age of 2 cannot. 

It has been proven that tv does effect neuron development. There are actual studies I can show you about animals that are exposed to various amounts of tv vs no tv at all.   How much is, yes still up for debate, but it has been proven to have some effect.

No one is a perfect parent, and yes, all kids are exposed to some tv throughout the day (even mine ).   Our kids are not goint to flunk out of college because of a 22 minute show.   The orginial OP asked what the problem of tv was and she was given answers.  Where our own opinion falls into all of this, doesn't really matter at this point. 

 

J+MS

Letting your kid watch TV =/= bad parenting.

Leaving your kid at home hungry and alone to go to a crack house = bad parenting.

shakes

cynhamilton:

I'm curious. Has anyone here noticed a difference in your child's development when compared to a child who has/has not watched tv? I read all I these studies but I have yet to get a real life response from a mom on how her child watching tv has affected her child's development. Any takers? I'm genuinely curious.

I let DS watch sesame street in the morning. Occasionally at night if he's fussy. He seems to be on track in his developments.

I can't say for sure, but DS doesn't watch TV, mostly out of lack of interest, but a friends DS does, a LOT. He fully just gaps out and stands in front of the tv with his mouth open at times. My DS was walking, talking, repeating (attempting too anyway) sounds and noises and interactive playing, long before her DS (my ds is 5 months younger). I have notices he is considerably more hyper than DS and he doesn't focus as long. Obviously I am not saying there IS a correlation and there is no way of knowing esp at this age, but I do find it a bit interesting overall.

For the record, there was nothing meant to be or sound judgy about this.

kcisthebombdotcom

intheflowers:

abartow:

actually I said that.  I said it was a combo of many factors and tv was one of them. 

Also, I never said that children can't watch any tv or that tv shouldn't be ever on.  I have said all along, that it is part of our culture and it is everywhere.  Whether we like it or not.   i just think it was one of those things that people don't  want to admit could be a negative influence.  If you are saying that it can't be proved as a cause then you are also saying it can't be proved as not a cause.   

And who says how much is not going to negatively effect vs too much is too much.  Is 22 minutes okay, but 30 minutes too much?  Why not just admit that it is a there are times that convenience wins, and you are willing to risk the minor effects that tv might have.  

And as for the brain development part.  this is a fact i will repeat- There are 12 stages to developement.  the first 7 are 0-24 months.  It is in  these first 7 stages that the neurons are formed and it is decided how they are going to be wired.    Therefore, yes, the first 2 years are the most important and children over the age of 2 can handle things that children under the age of 2 cannot. 

It has been proven that tv does effect neuron development. There are actual studies I can show you about animals that are exposed to various amounts of tv vs no tv at all.   How much is, yes still up for debate, but it has been proven to have some effect.

No one is a perfect parent, and yes, all kids are exposed to some tv throughout the day (even mine ).   Our kids are not goint to flunk out of college because of a 22 minute show.   The orginial OP asked what the problem of tv was and she was given answers.  Where our own opinion falls into all of this, doesn't really matter at this point. 

 

 To clarify, this is actually not true. Baby has all its neurons when born, there are actually TOO MANY connections. That's where you get newborn reflexes and why babies have jerky movements. To go on the movement example, it's smoothed out over time as the brain figures out the most direct route to send the signal. (So over time, the signal is sent on the highway instead of meandering along the back roads).

Scientists know that the stimulation the baby receives directly affects the signaling pattern. Babies that get very little stimulation (e.g. the well-studied Soviet orphanage babies) will have one outcome while babies that are exposed to a lot of flashing lights and rapidly changing images on a screen will have another outcome. In the former example, you have a lot of connections that are deemed not useful by the body which has gone into survival mode. In the latter example, you may retain too many connections or not smooth out the best routes for signals, and this is where you can affect the baby's attention. As I mentioned before, they haven't quantified this yet, which is why they just recommend no TV. Sort of like saying no alcohol for pregnant women. You're probably not going to screw up your baby with a glass of wine here or there or a little TV. But they can't just pinpoint definitively that X minutes of television will cause Y delays so it's easier to just issue a blanket recommendation.

 

Not that anyone is going to read this anyway. 

Well, I read it and agree.