Or you realize that the theory isn't that important after encountering families who don't let their children watch TV and observing bad behavior. And encountering families who allow outrageous TV watching and noticing good behavior.

Anecdotes are not data.

There's not any data either: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/screen-time-for-kids-is....

Parenting is not a data driven activity. It's an art because children are people not statistics.

I have four kids and outright banned YouTube in our house after that elsagate article in the nyt. I just don't have the time or desire to monitor what YouTube decides to show them.

With Netflix I have a much better idea of what they're seeing. Plus they will watch an entire show with a beginning mine middle and end on Netflix.

When they asked why no more YouTube I told them I didn't want them seeing ads and that Netflix is enough.

I guess that's a long way of saying that it's possible to hand your kid a smart phone to get them out of your hair without involving YouTube.

I can't tell if this is an intentional strawman but you are in no way addressing the question.

There is literally millions of hours of high quality content to distract children that is not commercial. In fact, young children will happily watch the same thing over and over again.

So why allow them to watch low quality commercial content?

Personally, I literally don't know of a single kid that's allowed to watch YouTube. Trust me, they don't run out of things to watch without it.

I think the GP was asking about letting kids watch ad-sponsored youtube channels.

Lots of parents end up having that time to use screen time as a crutch.

I just avoid the most egregious sources, like youtube.

Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and my personal collection of Disney & Pixar films, all have enough kids content that if I need that extra help, I can go towards.

My mother solved the TV problem easily: don't have a TV in the house. Of course cellphones are now TVs, so that's a bit harder. But -- and I know I'll get down votes for writing this -- you as a parent are supposed to be in control. If I cried over something dumb like this, I'd absolutely be having a painfully intimate moment with a ruler, belt or hand. I say this as a 27 year old: these days parents are afraid to physically discipline their kids, and then wonder what's wrong with their kids.

Consensus among scientists seems to be that physical discipline is less effective.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

What does hitting your kid when they cry resolve? A kid doesn't get to watch TV. They cry. They still don't get to watch TV. They get used to it and stop crying. Why does hitting need to be involved?

Does your boss hit you when your less productive at work?

I think we have arrived at a significant culture clash.

I believe that whipping children is quite bad and, on its face, substantially worse than allowing children to watch videos of other children happily playing with toys.

Violence begets violence. Using violence teaches kids to be violent, aggressive and anti-social even under the guise of discipline. This is well known in child development. It also doesn't work. Even the worst behaviors can be managed effectively without resorting to violence.

At least where I live you would get cops called on you for spanking your kid. Lots of people are against it and view it as child abuse, so even if you view it as acceptable society will punish you for carrying out the corporal punishment.

Study after study has shown that spanking kids has detrimental effects on behavior later on. The solution you're advocating is the exact same trade-off you're deriding: gaining compliance now for negative consequences later.

I'm advocating nothing, as I don't really have a personal opinion on soanking. OP implied that people didn't spank their kids out of ignorance. I was just pointing out that there are forces preventing people from spanking their kids, even if they want to do so

> If I cried over something dumb like this, I'd absolutely be having a painfully intimate moment with a ruler, belt or hand

Children, especially very young children, cry over dumb things; it's normal and expected and beating them for it is both cruel and (as mountains of evidence have shown) counterproductive developmentally.

That's not to say parents should give in to tantrums, they should not. But there is a vast space between giving in to tantrums and beating children for them, and it's somewhere in that space that good parenting lies.

Yeah I had parents that thought way. Eventually I had enough of it and gave it right back to them. Think about that before you start a family.

This is absolutely right, but we live in a neutered society. Parents are absolutely worried about having the cops called on them if they strike their children, even in a an appropriate disciplinary manner. Also we've had years of experts telling us not to discipline our children. Result, unruly children who become unruly adults.

So if I don't "strike" my children, I'm not disciplining them? My kids would beg to differ. They are incredibly well-behaved, and I have never physically hurt them as punishment.

You can discipline without resorting to violence. People do it everyday in school, workplace, and all manners of life. I'm not sure why violent discipline is ok when it comes to children.

I'm not up to date on the research on corporal punishment, but isn't the obvious distinction that adults can respond to rational incentives, and children cannot?

Scientists seem to take a strong stand against corporal punishment, but I do have to say, as an Asian dude I know _lots_ of Asian people (well really everyone from Asia) who are brilliant (engineers, surgeons, businessmen) and seem mentally fine and well and they were disciplined physically both at home and school.

My pet theory is that since in school environments physical punishment was distributed "equally", that's not as bad.

I really wonder how far back corporal punishment dates in the west, and whether brilliant people like Einstein ever received physical punishment.

How is that obvious? I have two kids that respond quite well to rational incentives. On the other hand some adults I know respond to irrational incentives all the time.

That is a difference (well past the teens, even, to an extent), and even without the piles of research on the harmful effects of corporal punishment on children, it should be immediately obvious from that difference why corporal punishment of children (whose entire theory is demonstrating an unacceptably high cost of the course of action) makes less, not more, sense than corporal punishment of adults.

Children are absolutely rational when you present the incentives appropriately.

I once saw a mother in a grocery store with her two little ones in the cart. The older child smacked the smaller one. The mother quickly smacked the older child and said emphatically "We! Don't! Hit!"

It doesn't take a scientific study to realize that teaching children not to be violent by punishing them with violence is confusing. Especially to a small child.

She was just too tired to be logical.

And what makes you think that the generation of “spanked” kids grew up as a well behaving individuals? As far as I see there is less violence nowadays compared to times before

Violent crime is down from the 1990's, but still double what it was in the 1950's: http://www.newgeography.com/content/003799-crime-down-urban-....

Your cite starts in the 60s not the 50s and it is for total crime rather than violent crime. Violent crime is about the same now as it was in the 60s.

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