Slashdot Mirror
Doctors Recommend Against TV For Kids Under 2
An anonymous reader writes "The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a recommendation to parents that kids under the age of two should be limited in their time watching television and using computers. They say there's 'no such thing' as educational programming for kids that young, and that they benefit much more from real human interaction (PDF). Psychologist Georgene Troseth said, 'We know that some learning can take place from media, but it's a lot lower, and it takes a lot longer.' The article continues: 'Unlike school-age children, infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on" no matter how well done a video is, Dr. Troseth said. The new report strongly warns parents against putting a TV in a very young child's room and advises them to be mindful of how much their own use of media is distracting from playtime. In some surveys between 40 and 60 percent of households report having a TV on for much of the day — which distracts both children and adults, research suggests.'"
Of course, he's a kitten, and he probably just sees the motions anyway, but did you really think I'd had a baby? Here, a slashdot poster?
Beer should also be recommended against in this age group.
I think most of TV is below the 2 year-old mentality.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXV-yaFmQNk
Do you laugh or do you weep for the future.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Doctors also recommend against watching programs designed for kids under 2, unless psychotropic substances are involved.
Well, what that 1 year old is doing is not "watching," she is interacting, which is different.
Parents these days don't care, they just want their kids to rot in a couch while the TV babysits them.
The first years of life are critical, because that's when the child slowly learns about the world, how to socialize and the limits of their body.
My 2 year old daughter loves ( L - O - V - E - S - !) the Fiest 1,2,3,4 Sesame Street video and has watched it since she was a little younger than 1. She dances and sings and it has never gotten old. In the beginning she was so enamoured with it, it was like watching those old movies of Beatles fans grasping their heads and shrieking with delight. She'd wave at the characters and definitely was interpretting it right from the start. It had less than 7 million hits a year ago, and at 14 million and counting, I am sure she is not the only fan.
Introducing music to kids is great and I'd add that its fun for me to do too.. I'd have to say that this is different than plugging her into a TV set to watch the eye-candy slackjawed n drooling and I noted the ADHD link with fast edit kids media recently It is a much more interactive thing where she picks her favourite videos to watch as a treat. We talk about the characters and animals and sometimes do drawings after. Another favorite is a Woody Guthrie classic and we sing it together sometimes. She digs the iPad since she can click on suggested videos at the end of one... OF course it is a supervise activity.
The AAP has always been extremely conservative when it comes to children and TV. No surprise about the new findings here. As always, you have to take these findings with a huge grain of salt. Apply common sense and your kids will be fine. I know that mine are even though they watched a boat-load of TV when they were still toddlers (what kid would not appreciate a bit of Sesame Street or The Wiggles?). Now they are in elementary school and way too busy to watch anything and they are a-okay with that.
Back in the day, parents would keep kids sequestered in playpens so that parents could get chores done easier. While TV is probably not the best answer, is there ever a good answer to distracting kids so you can do laundry, make food, take a shower or other necessary tasks?
The baby touches the toy and the colors change. You don't have to spend iPad money to get something like that.
infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on" no matter how well done a video is
This is just plain stupid. It isn't even a good lie. The "The American Academy of Pediatrics" us a self selecting group. It is one that has always seen TV as evil. My son was beating multiple levels of Pac-Man before he was 1 year old. Literally before he could walk. There is no way that this would have been possible if children couldn't understand what was happening on the screen before the age of 2.
Anyone that has bothered to talk to an 18 month old knows that they understand what is going on on the TV.
This is just nonsense.
My son wouldn't talk till he was over 2 years old. We were starting to worry. Then he discovered Thomas the Tank Engine. Suddenly he wanted to say the names of the engines and he learnt his colours too. That led to shapes. At 3 he's now on to identifying numbers on the sides of the engines, he's got an incredible imagination. With no prompting he drew a passable clown face on his face when momentarily left alone with a texter (and showed how he'd close his eyes when he was warned that he could poke his eyes out). He's been to the circus exactly twice. I'll bet he got that from TV. He knows some letters because he's learnt H is for horn for example when we play Trainz with Thomas characters, or that you hit W to go forward. He has limited mouse and keyboard skills but his comprehension impresses me. He goes to preschool now so that's helping his social development. He is not allowed to sit there and do nothing but watch TV. My wife plays and draws and bakes cookies and everything else you would expect a young child do.
My daughter's developing speech sooner. She's not 18 months old yet but she's asking for certain objects with abbreviated words "bub" for bubble etc. She loves TV shows too. She usually prefers to watch with her brother and she's a very social little creature indeed.
Young children may not have the skills to understand at high level concepts, but they sure as hell can follow a kids TV show. And as long as it's not all they do, I think it's very important to their development.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
it trains your mind to be led by something other than your mind itself.
so even if television wasnt full of violence and myriad sexual innuendis (which it is), but instead filled only with decent people doing decent things, it would still exert a tremendous and unquantifiable amount of damage to the normal healthy mental fitness of any human cognitive enough to interpret any part of its message at any basic level.
i hate to say it but technology has dehumanized humanity. many have seen it pervading the social fabric already, decades ago. they were ridiculed and derided by people much like myself until a few years ago when the evidence became too overwhelming for me to continue living a lie.
our society is now filled with people that cannot concentrate on anything important for too long, seldom dwell on any actually important topic, and have very little desire to muse on anything. we all want fast paced, lots of colors, quick shallow messages that can be digested without any heavy mental thought given.
i am reading a book right now that echos my feelings on this far better than i can articulate. it is called 'high tech heretic' by clifford stoll (better known for his non fiction book 'the cuckoos egg' when he tracked down hackers that were working for the kgb and were breaking into the vms / bsd box's at his university decades ago)
Given she managed to open/turn pages in both magazines I think she understands them pretty well. The grabby hand movements don't seem strange, babies like feeling things. The only strange thing in the video is that the baby doesn't try to taste the magazine or the iPad.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
You call apples lawyers and inform them those magazines are deceptively ripping off the ipad's design and they should have the court halt their shipments until things are sorted out.
Just wondering. TV isn't just bad for babies.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Everyone has been exposed to TV since Howdy Doody and Clarabel the Clown. What the study shows is that human contact and caring - WITH or WITHOUT television - is goodness. If you substitute TV for empty room, good. Substitute TV for siblings fighting in living room, ok. Substitute TV for caring interactive parents? Bad, Maybe?
Gently reply
infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on" no matter how well done a video is
They can enjoy music, motion, colors, and even learn to understand what is going on. My first daughter watched https://www.babysigningtime.com/ from about 6 months (give or take a bit) and by 1 had a rather extensive signing vocabulary. At first she would watch 1 segment and gradually would watch one 30 minute episode (each episode had about 6 segments with a group of related signs in song format). The songs were catchy and the colors were flashy. Even if she was just sitting and playing and not paying full attention, I felt it was a fine musical background. Also, her watching was not always a solo activity. Many days, her and I would curl up together on the couch and watch the episode right before bed as a way to unwind. I was hoping http://www.yourbabycanread.com/ would catch her attention too, but when she wanted a show on it was almost always Signing Time.
Most people will immediately take the knee-jerk reaction and think they can't let a child watch anything. Sure, if you let the television babysit your child for hours you will have issues. Like everything else in this world, there is a need for moderation and parental involvement. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with letting a child watch things like the previously mentioned shows, Sesame Street, Super Why, or Sid the Science Kid, so long as it is not being used as a substitute for parenting.
(I do not work for nor have any association with any of the aforementioned programming)
(Post based on empirical evidence, not a scientific study. Your mileage may vary. Perhaps my child turned out great DESPITE my efforts.)
I mentioned to friends of mine who were new parents of twins and had discovered "Baby Einstein" that I didn't think television was a good thing for early developing minds. Specifically, I was concerned with 3D perception developing from looking at a 2D screen.
This was where I learned to be very careful commenting on others child rearing decisions.
I guess I really stepped over the line when I wondered about the possible correlation of TV's in households to Autism...
A quick search brings up more than speculation.. here's a 2006 Slate article that begins in the same place I did.. with speculation:
TV might really cause Autism
. . . another year to use the computer, you are out of your fucking mind!
The corners aren't rounded, I think the magazines might have a slim chance.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
an anonymous coward preaching down to individuals not worthy of a name?
slashdot = stagnated
you = nigger
They had better come up with alternative proposals what to do with the babies when there is no full-time Nanny around.
I would have imagined limited watching of tv and computers would be recommended for people of all ages. Personally I limit tv to one hour a day and computers to a few hours a week even for my older child.
Most children today may not be reading books off printed paper in the future anyway, so I consider it funny.
In times gone by women worked the field and carried their babies with them. As the children learned to walk to would first play work and soon work for real.
Or are you talking of days gone by in which very young children were send down the mines because they fit in the narrowest spaces, don't get paid much and nobody cared to much if they died?
What yesterday are you talking about?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
...is news? Really?
If I had a kid, I would not have Cable/Satellite TV. Its Books and Playtime, with very light internet exposure. I'm 20, and I don't even watch TV save for the Discovery and Science channels every once in a while. Hell, even the news (At least in the US) is absolutely terrible.
When babies put things in their mouths, it's usually not to taste them, but to feel their shape. Their mouths are better developed than their hands at that age.
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/baby/development/inmouthexpert/
My son had 500+ words at 18 months. He was assessed last week as part of his 2 year check-up and we were told in most developmental areas he is at the level of a 3 year old. The crazy thing is the assessor saw very, very little of what he can do as he was quite shy and reticent. At 2 years and 2 weeks he speaks in 6+ word sentences (including tenses, plurals and pronouns) , makes up stories and tells jokes - real funny, abstract stuff. He can also count objects pretty consistently up to 10. He's so far ahead of his peers it's a little uncomfortable for us. We're not particularly bright and don't do anything particularly interesting with him (he's in creche 3 days a week too.) BUT, the big difference between us and other parents we know is that we have a zero TV policy. It causes havoc for us as we can't just park him and get on with things, so the house is a tip and by the time we tidy up and sit down to eat at night it's pretty late. It's simple in my mind - because there are no TV or video games/computers etc, apart from the odd ten minutes here or there where he's building a house out of Lego or posting torn up paper through a fake letterbox, he spends all his time interacting with other human beings - real, proper two-way exploration of his little world. TV crowds that out. It's just bad stuff for the little ones man! Thinking about it, may be there is a bit more to it. No junk food or dummies (pacifiers), in fact, nothing that stupifies. We don't give him juice or chocolate to shut him up, or bung him in a stroller so we can go for a walk and chill. If he's grouchy we try and get him to work it out, or we distract him with different interaction, or encourgae him to come up with a new game.
i have 2 children.
Poor bastards.
The corners aren't rounded, I think the magazines might have a slim chance.
Slim not allowed. Prior art.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I had to; it was right there.
Its meaningless marketing. Find something almost all parents occasionally do thats mostly harmless, as the greeks said, all things in moderation. Make the parents feel guilty about it. While they feel bad, make some suggestions that are easier than burning the TV and are highly profitable, like maybe bring your child in for a checkup every 4 weeks from birth to 18 years. Also its hard core authoritarian trip, use guilt to prove their superiority and authority over the lowly stinking masses and use their superiority and authority to encourage more guilt. I've opted out of their little game and everyone else should too. F those people.
Personally I think its an incredibly offensive marketing scheme. No one really likes being guilty, they are fundamentally being anti-social. If they want a guy like me to bring my kids to the pediatrician every month and worship the ground they walk on, I'm not saying revealing "naughty nurse" costumes would do it, but I sure as heck wouldn't complain about it. If they have to do something demeaning and inappropriate and objectifying, at least make it hot.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
And yet here we are 2 generations into the television era and we are making the same number of mind blowing technological breakthroughs if not more. I constantly here about TV being bad for these people and those children and this that and some other thing. Yet, I have yet to have any anecdotal evidence whatsoever that a single shred of any of it is true in any way shape or form. If TV were so wrong and so bad for children there would be evidence apparent to anyone not just research psychologists and pediatricians. The only bad thing I would entertain about television is the time it takes away from other activities. Most people I know do this incredible thing, they actually watch the TV WITH their children and on top of that crazy idea, they also jump around and sing along. Crazy, I know. I believe a certain amount of "outside time" is a good thing, but as long as you don't let the TV become your babysitter every single day and stop to enjoy a show WITH your children. I really think these researchers are completely full of it after hearing study after study after study after study ad infinitum.
My daughter has been watching TV shows since she was very young. She just turned two in august. She can count to 20, she can sing her ABC's, she knows her colors and shapes. She sings AND dances along with the fresh beat band. She misses words and doesn't have the choreography down. When they spin she spins when they fold their arms she folds her arms. We had to get her her own ipod touch so she would stop accidentally calling people on our iphones. She opens the apps she wants and lets us know which videos she wants to watch, elmo street, olivia, the beats. She LOVES to facetime grandma and grandpa. We can't always read books to her and give her our undivided attention, but these technologies, I think, have helped her learn and develop faster than not having them, and she still plays imaginatively with the low tech toys as well. Children under two won't benefit from the Soaps, or prime time dramas, but that does not mean they will not learn from educational shows and attentive parents.
'Unlike school-age children, infants and toddlers "just have no idea what's going on"
That's why it's best to have them watch shows like the Teletubbies. That way, nobody of any age can figure out what's going on, and the toddlers don't feel like they're being left out.
Mike!
Haven't seen you for a while. Nice to see you back on /. Where've you been? Did you bring us anything?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
That all kids are different. Some kids can eat an entire jar of peanut butter, other kids break out in hives if they touch something that was covered in peanut butter last week. Some kids can play video games and be perfectly fine, others play Doom and then shoot up a school. A part of being a parent is observing and providing for the individual needs of the kids. Some kids may learn and benefit from a little TV, others may suffer for it. You just gotta pay attention and figure out whats right for your kid. If your kid goes nuts after watching Sponge Bob, then its probably best to stop letting them watch it.
despite no "real human interaction," and that's all the way into middle age!
My 18 month old daughter watches the caramel dancing video on you tube and loves it. She dances and sings and it makes her happy. She also claps with the people on the Price Is Right and dances for Seseme Street. She chants "cookie" everytime she sees a big blue fuzzy thing. When we Skype with her grand parents she runs up to the TV even before the connection is made and starts waving and chatting away at it (before the grandparents are there to chat back). She doesn't wave or talk to the TV for normal programming, just when Skype or other video features are on. She gives her grandparents high-fives in the TV and tries to hand them things. The idea that she doesn't understand her surroundings is rediculous. She knows where I keep the bananas. She knows that at the end of the day her doll stroller gets parked in front of the fireplace and the firetruck goes to the left and it is head-in parking only. She is actually better at picking up the living room than me and my husband. Just because they can't talk to you doesn't mean they aren't extreamly smart or that they don't know things.
I also recommend against TV for kids over 2. The overwhelming majority of it is a wasteland.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Go back to cowering in your children's shadows, you trollbot!
How to deliver the adds if they are just directly interacting with people?
Branding can not start soon enough.
My daughter started watching Signing Time (http://www.signingtime.com) when she was 10 months old. She loved the show so we watched it once per day, for about 25 minutes per day.
By the time she was 14 months old I could take her to the zoo and she could sign Monkey, Zebra, Horse and many other signs. Here is a video of her doing exactly that: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikejenphotos/3467807751/in/set-72157604954739094
By the time she was 20 months old she had a huge vocabulary of hundreds of signs even before she could say all of the words.
Now that she is 3.5 we communicate via sign language all the time. That TV show has been influential in teaching her to spell and read by incorporating finger spelling.
Of course, I wasn't just sitting her down and leaving her there. I would watch with her (that's how I learned to sign) and incorporate real world items so that she could see that link between the signs on TV and her own things (like toys, food, etc) but that TV show was absolutely instrumental in her language skills. (It didn't hurt that she's a genius... I'm not biased...)
My second will be born in January and there is nothing that could convince me not to repeat the same process with her.
Apart from his severely dysfunctional social skills and banal attempts at trolling? Fuck all. The guy's a seeping pustule upon the malignant tumour infesting Slashdot's unsightly haemorrhoids. He's not pathetic; he's ill if he actually derives some sort of satisfaction from baiting people like this, which is exactly why I'd pity his children if they weren't imaginary.
You see that, Mike? There's more to insults then just pasting in the same tired old feeb/pathetic/cowering response to anyone who replies to your "contributions".
I suggest you go and see a therapist, Michael - and that's not something I say very often. Do it now, before you lose any chance of a meaningful relationship with another human being.
My daughter is almost two and she loves sesame street. She will ask for an Elmo video and can name pretty much all the characters she sees. She relates to the things she sees: when characters fall down or bump into something she goes "boom", if they spill or drop something she says "ohh noo!!" or "Uh-oh". If they are eating something she will say "il mange".
We are a bilingual household, so it would be normal for a child at this stage to be slightly behind others of their agegroup, linguistically speaking. But it isn't like that at all. She is approching a three-year old's level of language. Mind you she speaks almost exclusively French but understand English without problem...just doesn't speak it.
I wouldn't be surprised if others on here could provide other examples that prove the article wrong.
It's just another case of an interest group trying to provide a black and white message to the masses. Do this. Don't do that. They don't bother to provide suggestions or assistance.
There is nothing wrong with children under two to watch some television. It should be something that attempts to engage them and assist with learning. Perhaps something along the lines of Sesame Street, Baby Einstein, etc. is alright in moderation and with parental involvement. Then give examples like Spongebob, while entertaining, doesn't provide any learning value for children.
It's not the TV that causes harm, it's the lack of face-to-face interaction. The TV is the time suck, taking away precious face time during the earliest, most formative years, when a child should be watching their parents' eyes and mouth and expression to learn how to communicate with other humans.
It depends on how the kid's genes are wired for early childhood development. If he's a late bloomer with language development, then he needs extra attention early on, which means less screen time and more face time, to help avoid any development delays.
The problem is that we cannot know how a child's genes are wired until it's too late. So stop being so selfish with your me-time and give your attention to your infant. You only get one shot per child.
"Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
I'm an introvert. My parents were introverts. My wife is an introvert. Can someone explain what "normal parents" do with their toddlers? We take our kids to the park occasionally but distance prohibits doing it every day. We let them play outside, but they require constant supervision due to their age. They do have some activities with children their age a couple times a week. But I think they probably have what this organization would consider significant screen exposure.
Is it television programming, or anything that comes out of that box with the moving pictures?
My daughter loved watching Signing Time, which we got as a gift, and we ended up buying the whole series. It teaches them sign language. She was signing before she could talk. My other two kids followed suit. We found it greatly beneficial.
Now the programming they watch (@ 2, 4, and 6) isn't quite up to that standard of educational learning, but Nick Jr (formerly Noggin), PBS Sprout, PBS, and a couple of other channels offer what I consider to be great programming.
It's like saying the internet is bad because of goatse (or facebook, for that matter).
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Is it like a computer?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I looked around for data when writing this story, The Evolution of Digital Natives -- The Touch Generation http://j.mp/pyKxXF, and quotes from medical experts seemed to be based on old data. Appears nothing has changed. Meanwhile, children are looking at magazines and touching them expecting them to act like iPads http://aol.it/o4eCnZ.
TL;DR version of j-stroy's post: "pfft. scientists."
"Us" you know, the /. crowd. If I'm nothing, does that mean you didn't bring me anything?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
You brought me facts. Awesome! I guess that means I'm not nothing.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Claiming that something is a felony when it isn't is a felony.
His "children" are actually small dogs. Presumably, this makes it easier for them to cower in his shadow. Unlike real children, they won't get any bigger.
I find it delightfully ironic, however, that Michael Kristopeit lives in a fantasy world that he has created relative to himself.