Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

STATmelatonin t1_j78wk7g wrote

The median screen time was about 2 hrs a day at 12 months. That’s a lot of TV for a baby.

168

healthierlurker t1_j79qvm9 wrote

That’s way too much TV time for any child, even older children, let alone a baby.

28

XxhumanguineapigxX t1_j7atcaj wrote

I don't have kids so it's irrelevant to me, but 2 hours a day doesn't seem like much at all? Maybe I'm mad.

I remember growing up watching a ~20min episode of a cartoon in the morning eating breakfast, then would continue watching 2-3 episodes of whatever was on cartoon network with my brother when we got home from school while mum cooked dinner and washed lunch boxes etc. I'd already be on ~1.5 hours from that alone.

Sometimes after dinner we'd all watch a movie together like Disney, or a few eps of the discovery channel (whole fam was obsessed with crocodile hunter growing up). I will say it wasn't every day - sometimes we played outside on the trampoline, or played with lego etc. But 2 hours across a whole day I guess doesn't feel like much to me!

62

Mr_Abobo t1_j7b5499 wrote

That’s as a child. As an owner of a baby, I can tell you they don’t really watch things like adults or even children do. Two hours of screen time is wild because that means they’re being plunked down and forgotten about, most likely.

61

ramonycajal88 t1_j7bajl8 wrote

So are the cognative issues due to the screen time? Or is it a lack of active interaction and bonding?

Parenting is tough, so I can imagine parents hand off their tablets or turn on the TV to get some quiet time. But, sounds like we need to figure out better ways to make that screen time interactive.

34

Taoistandroid t1_j7brnt1 wrote

Parents with executive disfunction might be influencing these results both genetically, and behaviorally. ADHD parents can have a hard time staying engaged.

So the study mentions, this doesn't prove a direct cause relationship, they need a better designed experiment for that.

19

electricvelvet t1_j7hvwxb wrote

As is almost always the case in scientific studies; it's not a flaw in the study. And this is an incredibly complex confluence of multiple high order systems--parenting, genetics, context, screen exposure to infants--you can't just do one good study/experiment. Too many variables would lead to useless data. Pick ONE and do that, which they did. It's limited info but at least we see correlation from this one (kinda big one).

Edit: and then you get the studies that people deride as useless because they just corroborate something seemingly obvious--ie "study shows parents with ADHD more likely to have children with ADHD." But you combine that with this, another study that says "parents with attention disorders more likely to have children who spend excessive amounts of time on screens" which would call into question whether the original study was merely correlation, or causation. Then have a follow-up study comparing, idk, infants with 2+ hrs of screen time and neurotypical parents to ADHD parents (which then runs the risk of unreliable self-reporting for the parents... and further questions about defining what qualifies as genetic predisposition towards ADHD, and what qualifies as ADHD etc). It gets complicated fast and there will rarely ever be a clear-cut answer, especially when it comes to anything to do with neurology, since we know so little about it currently. But hey that's why we have universities full of research scientists all around the world engaging in scientific dialog and peer review.

4

Lucky_Pyro t1_j7bpgga wrote

I wish this were part of the study... unfortunately, my kids watch alot of TV (23 mos and 7mos). But we are there with them singing songs and pointing out characters and interacting. Now, Disney is very fast paced for kids, unfortunately, but we try no screen time for a little bit each day, and dinner at the table with no screens. Neither of our kids use our phones or tablets, and while the TV is playing they are playing with toys and books which we also play with. Parenting is not easy, and there are so many ways to do it. Not a one size fits all.

18

ramonycajal88 t1_j7bqs6j wrote

Agreed! I don't think all children shows need to be "educational". But, the bonding and interactive aspect seems significant.

6

chicojuarz t1_j7bf6rt wrote

The study seems to say they don’t know because the data isn’t detailed enough to tell the difference.

7

notsurewhattosay-- t1_j7bkg69 wrote

I used to own a baby. Two actually. They grew up. Sadly I lost ownership. They adulted.

8

chicojuarz t1_j7bf4ff wrote

Screen time had a strong correlation to household income in the study

7

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7ax118 wrote

I was so confused by this post. Who gives "screen time" to an infant? Infants amuse themselves by just existing and i couldn't even begin to understand why an infant would need any type of media at all.

22

usr_dev t1_j7b09yx wrote

So the adult who cares for this other human being 24/7 can get a pause.

32

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7b0zef wrote

Give them a box for gods sake.

Infants are idiots and are amused by everything around them including themselves. Obviously this rule doesn't apply to every infant but in my own experience I have never met an infant that couldn't keep themselves occupied with basically anything.

This is the reasoning behind people that lock everything up in their homes and baby proof everything. Infants are curious little shits that keep themselves occupied by whatever means possible.

−13

TumbleWeed_64 t1_j7b3d59 wrote

Found the person without children.

29

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7bb9k3 wrote

I have 5 kids and I'm also the parent that never used a pacifier.

Good try though I guess

−2

forests-of-purgatory t1_j7c7h98 wrote

Why no pacifier? In babies they reduce the risk of SIDS?

11

unknownkaleidoscope t1_j8dtvkd wrote

Pacifiers are awful for oral development. SIDS, while tragic, is not really common at all, and it’s largely not preventable. There are also other ways to reduce risk, like not smoking, room sharing, etc. that are only beneficial and do not mess up their oral development.

0

forests-of-purgatory t1_j8e8win wrote

Pacifiers do not affect oral development in the first few months of life

Sids is worse than bad teeth, even if less likely

2

forests-of-purgatory t1_j8ea1q3 wrote

“Normal pacifier use during the first few years of life generally doesn't cause long-term dental problems. However, prolonged pacifier use might cause a child's teeth to be misaligned.” -Mayo clinic

“Pacifiers are not necessarily bad for your baby if they are weaned off of them before the age of two. After that, teeth start to develop, and oral health can be impacted.“ - oral surgery of utah

I said months in my other comment but apparently its a few years. Most places recommend pacifiers between ages 1-6 months to reduce SIDS risk anyways, just wean them off before oral development would be affected and its a win win

Edited like 3 times to figure out formatting, oh the difference a space makes

1

unknownkaleidoscope t1_j8ew29t wrote

The protective factor of pacifiers is minimal and can be made up in other ways, like breastfeeding and room sharing…

Pacifiers are a breast replacement option. If you breastfeed, you don’t need pacifiers unless it’s your preference. Some parents don’t have that preference because they don’t want to risk oral development issues or dependency… I’m not sure why this is controversial. Use pacifiers if you want, all I was doing is answering your question on why some parents choose not to use a pacifier.

1

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7fdes0 wrote

Being around parents that used pacifiers with their kids made me feel like it was used as a "crutch" for both the child and the parent.

I just never liked the concept of it.

Apparently it's because I like to picture myself sitting on a throne judging the other peasant parents I guess. Tumbleweed over here knows me more than I know myself so you can just ask them.

−1

corcyra t1_j7bateq wrote

>Infants are idiots

>Infants are curious little shits that keep themselves occupied by whatever means possible

Choose one, because they can't both be true. Also, don't think you've ever had kids.

2

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7birv2 wrote

You can think whatever you want but your opinions unfortunately don't change reality.

How exactly can someone not be an idiot as well as curious and easily occupied? I hate to break it to you but it's extremely easy to entertain a stupid person, not so much with the opposite side of the spectrum.

3

corcyra t1_j7d2yij wrote

Because lack of curiosity is a hallmark of the idiot.

What you don't understand (I'm guessing you don't know that many children or even like them very much, given the way you talk about them) is what kids are doing when they play. There's an old saying that if you give a child a toy with only one function, they'll get bored with it very quickly and go play with the box, because the box can become anything. That's not stupidity, but the nascent human spirit of enquiry which led to the steam engine, among other useful things.

4

Neither_Ride3473 t1_j7fceo1 wrote

Ok. As a matter of fact I have 5 kids and I grew up babysitting kids. I apologize for offending you by using the word idiot because I was obviously 100% attempting to insult children.

I'm really not sorry, but hopefully my apology will make you feel better and you will go away. Toodles!

1

SilentHunter7 t1_j7bq21y wrote

I did. We used to watch Cocomelon and Have Fun Teaching a lot together; he loved the counting ducks and the ABCs. Part of our bedtime routine was a 3 minute cartoon video of singing Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.

I was wondering if we were giving too much screen time to him, until he recited his ABCs and knew his planets by sight at 1 year old. Little dude's 5 now, and really into Numberblocks. Kid knows almost all of his times tables (still stumbles with 7's and 8's), which is damn impressive amount for a kindergartener and can do powers of 2 up until 1024.

You ask me, I think educational screen time should be studied for beneficial effects of childhood development. Did a treat on my little guy.

9

PIK_Toggle t1_j7c0if1 wrote

My nephew wants to play with my sister-in-law’s phone whenever he sees it. He’s 18 months now. He’s been doing this since he was around six months old.

I changed the settings on my sons iPad so that I can control how much time he gets. I give him access in 15 minute increments. That’s it.

We will watch movies on the weekends sometimes as a treat.

Screens are everywhere. It’s a constant battle.

9

AnAliebn99 t1_j8dmpw0 wrote

In the apartment I lived last, my neighbors were giving their baby 6+ hours of screen time a day. I lived there from the baby being around 6mo-1.5 years. They would just put her in the high chair, and put the high chair maybe 3 feet from the tv and just play movies all day long. She would eat all her meals in front of it. By the time she could sit up on her own, she was totally addicted. She’d plop herself down right in front of the tv and was totally entranced. It was crazy to see.

Now she’s 4 and really struggling.

1

twitchyv t1_j7crjtd wrote

Yeah that’s wild. This why I, as a nanny, refuse to do screen time with any kids under 5 which is easier said than done if the parents share the same philosophical views on screen time. But under my watch, there’s no screens!

7

jtb1987 t1_j7bhoxl wrote

Providing internet access with privacy allows baby's and young children to find and connect with others that can support their identities and values so that parents are prevented from instilling their own toxic values.

−6

TwoFlower68 t1_j7bn4jt wrote

A 12 month old baby is not going to screen time with a peer, more's the pity

7