Reply to For those parents only who don’t allow screens

Forum Index » General Parenting Discussion

Reply to "For those parents only who don’t allow screens "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Um... no? No age or milestone, per se. Because we weren't/aren't doing it so that our kid will "be ahead" or anything. And on the flipside, we felt no need for us, *as adults/parents*, to "introduce" it. To keep her occupied? To teach her things she'd probably learn better some other way (especially when younger)? To share a favorite movie? Eh, there are other things we share, for now.

So our kid got, or is getting, screen access very organically, when it's necessary and helpful on balance. Which means she is still pretty much screen free at 7, in terms of what most people who call it screen time would actually deem screen time to be meted out or whatever.

In other words-- when she started K, the school introduced screens to an extent. Fine. Rarely, she might help me online-shop for something because it's relevant. We went to a movie screening for a film her dad was in. I mean, obviously. We go to a museum and they have screen media in the exhibits. Great. Skype/Zoom has always been fine with me-- it's just a video phone call. Etc.

The only time setting a strict age makes sense to me, regardless of overall philosophy, is about 18 months, because their brains really don't process screen information well at all before then. And certainly as very young babies, TV/etc. triggers a loop in their orienting response-- that is, they essentially can't look away when they're overstimulated.

But otherwise, I don't see much point in setting a hard and fast age in any direction. Or milestone... except that certainly, it's probably easier to deal with screens past the tantrum/etc. age. Like 4-ish, I guess.[/quote]

If you have a moment, PP, can you elaborate on the “triggers a loop in their orientating response”.  [/quote]

Sure. I've read about this a bit, but not sure if I can find TV-and-infant-specific resources quickly. But basically I'm talking about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orienting_response

"Both novelty and significance of a stimulation are implicated in the generation of an orienting response."

So the idea is that infant brains are going to be triggered to pay attention to each novel/hyperstimulating image/sound combo, because their brains are immature, and it's all VERY novel to them. So they look at the screen in an obligate way. They *have to*, essentially. Of course, the novelty would wear off, but the screen changes 2 seconds later, so they have to look again. And again, and again. They kind of can't look away, and particularly when they are veery young and don't have neck control, it's a physical/musculature thing. But even after that, it's very hard neurologically. This is regardless of how much exposure they get, at least before a certain age, developmentally. That is-- a 3-month-old who has had the TV on 24/7 is not more able to look away than a 3-month-old seeing TV for the first time.

This is why I cringe a bit (but don't say anything) when I see the very, very common social media post of a parent watching, say, Star Wars or Moana "with" their newborn or infant ans saying "Look at him, he's just ENTRANCED." And the parent often attributes this specifically to being fascinated by and adoring the content that they (the parent) presumably loves... When it's really that the baby is being overstimulated with no escape hatch.   [/quote]

Thank you!  This is fascinating!  I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics