I would like to hear from professionals about screen use

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

I do, believe me! I just don’t have to pretend they’re nutritious and good for me or my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

I do, believe me! I just don’t have to pretend they’re nutritious and good for me or my kids.

They can be good in moderation because they bring joy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

I do, believe me! I just don’t have to pretend they’re nutritious and good for me or my kids.

They can be good in moderation because they bring joy.

Nonsense. So does a little cocaine. NP here and why is is so hard for our generation of mothers to admit that some things we give and let our kids do simply has no benefit?! Seriously, sometimes “does no harm” is enough!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

I do, believe me! I just don’t have to pretend they’re nutritious and good for me or my kids.

They can be good in moderation because they bring joy.

Nonsense. So does a little cocaine. NP here and why is is so hard for our generation of mothers to admit that some things we give and let our kids do simply has no benefit?! Seriously, sometimes “does no harm” is enough!!

You’re comparing cookies to cocaine? Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

I do, believe me! I just don’t have to pretend they’re nutritious and good for me or my kids.

They can be good in moderation because they bring joy.

Nonsense. So does a little cocaine. NP here and why is is so hard for our generation of mothers to admit that some things we give and let our kids do simply has no benefit?! Seriously, sometimes “does no harm” is enough!!

You’re comparing cookies to cocaine? Huh?

Why not? Cocaine bring joy!

My point is that you can relax. You don’t have to justify everything you do as a positive. Neutral is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pediatrician here. OP, I think you are doing great. Once you introduce more screen time, you can’t go back. Besides FaceTiming relatives, I would limit screens until it’s really necessary (like in middle school when schoolwork is done on computers). I have 2 teens. During elementary, we did no screens during school days, and then limited on the weekends. Screens are used so often as pacifiers these days, I feel like young kids don’t know how to cope in new situations. On the other hand, I do see the benefits of screens for older kids; nowadays, it is the way they socialize and keep in touch, so I am not against screens forever. At some point, you’ll need to guide them to balance screen use. Read Screenwise by Deborah Heitner.

This. I agree.

[Anonymous]

A half-hour of screen time for a five-year-old is fine. I wouldn’t recommend increasing it.

- pediatrician

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

I do, believe me! I just don’t have to pretend they’re nutritious and good for me or my kids.

They can be good in moderation because they bring joy.

Nonsense. So does a little cocaine. NP here and why is is so hard for our generation of mothers to admit that some things we give and let our kids do simply has no benefit?! Seriously, sometimes “does no harm” is enough!!

You’re comparing cookies to cocaine? Huh?

Why not? Cocaine bring joy!

My point is that you can relax. You don’t have to justify everything you do as a positive. Neutral is fine.

You’re taking my statement to a ridiculous extreme. No amount of cocaine is ok and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

I do, believe me! I just don’t have to pretend they’re nutritious and good for me or my kids.

They can be good in moderation because they bring joy.

Nonsense. So does a little cocaine. NP here and why is is so hard for our generation of mothers to admit that some things we give and let our kids do simply has no benefit?! Seriously, sometimes “does no harm” is enough!!

You’re comparing cookies to cocaine? Huh?

Why not? Cocaine bring joy!

My point is that you can relax. You don’t have to justify everything you do as a positive. Neutral is fine.

You’re taking my statement to a ridiculous extreme. No amount of cocaine is ok and you know it.

PP was saying cocaine brings joy. True statement. NP here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a child psychologist. DH is a (non-child) psychologist who works in tech. Our kids are not allowed any screens except for Facetiming distant relatives, unless we're on an airplane, until they need screens for school. We purposely picked a school that's very low screen.

Can you explain your rationale?

I'm not going to link to all the studies but we've read them on how detrimental screen use is to kids (heck, and to adults) and their developing minds/sense of self but they exist, and have been published for years. Yes, we live in a technological world, but it's not hard to learn and "catching up" won't take much time at all. There are no legit studies out there concluding that kids should view more screens. When you combine that with the growing number of screen addictions it's a very simple conclusion.

Really? So, the studies showing positive outcomes from Sesame Street (over 50 years) are just all full o' crap (in your opinion)? I'm in education research, technology specifically, and I most certainly would not say there are "no legit studies" concluding that all screens are always terrible under all circumstances. That's a wild overstatement and not the way actual scientists conceptualize scientific findings.

As with many things in life, screens are complicated. Dosage matters. Opportunity costs matter. Quality matters. A kid who watches YouTube junk eight hours a day and gets little attention (especially talk and read time) with their caregivers and little gross/fine motor exercise may well suffer. However, even that depends on what the alternatives are. If the kid might otherwise be out on the street where they may potentially get shot or jumped into gangs, then I'll take eight hours of YouTube junk and consider it a win for that family in those circumstances.

OTOH, if the family can provide it, a kid who watches an hour of Sesame Street or the Wild Kratts with their caregiver, during which they discuss what they are seeing, and then follow it up with a walk to the library to get a book to read together about what they just saw, is in no danger from the screen itself. In fact, that child may gain and grow from the experience.

I realize for many parents it's much harder to do the second scenario than it is to simply say "no screens." And if "no screens" works for your family, then you do you. But it's also not right to terrify parents into thinking screens are always bad for everyone. They're not.

Can you please link those studies on the benefit of a child watching Sesame Street if not under-privileged?

And for our MC and UMC kids, are there no better ways to learn what those shows teach or a better use of that time?

Look, I let my kids watch one show every day but I’m not going to pretend it’s good for them at 3 and 5.

Again, it's not the screen that is good or bad. It's dosage, quality, and opportunity costs. I'm not going to link to all the studies. You can't look at one or two studies in any field and think you've mastered it our gotten the gist of the research across an entire field. You seriously have to stop kidding yourself that this type of "research" means you understand what the heck you're saying about anything.

So, I'll say this again. You can use screens. Your kids can actually benefit from the experience. It depends on your family circumstances and how you use the screens. If you watch the show with your kids and talk to them about what you are seeing (which develops receptive and expressed language), then you layer that learning with information from other sources (reinforce) and exercise (minimizing obesity risk), all-the-while demonstrating a positive interest in their interests (which helps build trusting relationships with caregivers), then the screen is not harming your kids and may become a tool for positive growth in your family.

If you don't want to believe me. Don't.

Yeah, cookies can be healthful when made with the right ingredients but that’s generally not what we mean when we say cookies. Cookies aren’t harmful in limited doses but they aren’t healthful either.

Same with screens. Accept it.

Cookies are part of life. Accept it.

I do, believe me! I just don’t have to pretend they’re nutritious and good for me or my kids.

They can be good in moderation because they bring joy.

Nonsense. So does a little cocaine. NP here and why is is so hard for our generation of mothers to admit that some things we give and let our kids do simply has no benefit?! Seriously, sometimes “does no harm” is enough!!

You’re comparing cookies to cocaine? Huh?

Why not? Cocaine bring joy!

My point is that you can relax. You don’t have to justify everything you do as a positive. Neutral is fine.

You’re taking my statement to a ridiculous extreme. No amount of cocaine is ok and you know it.

PP was saying cocaine brings joy. True statement. NP here.

No one is saying ANYTHING is good because it brings joy. This is strawmanning at its worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our entire society is screen addicted. So yeah, most kids are too. You can’t fix systemic issues at an individual level, but that’s what parents are told to do, over and over.

Also, the culture of intensive parenting is incredibly wearing. Parents use screens for a break, which makes the kids less tolerant of boredom. Vicious cycle.

We should start by rejecting intensive parenting, not screens.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous]

I hate to see what happens when kids that were raised by computers and social media have their own children. How many skills will they be lacking because they missed out on their own childhood by lazy parents who sat them in front of a computer all day