I agree with you on the ephemeralization of the phone/tablet/computer. And honestly, that's the problem. The device is so "powerful" these days that it literally can become the entire sole source of entertainment, knowledge, and socialization.

As parents, we want our children have well rounded experiences. To do things in the physical world. And it's getting increasingly difficult to do that. The device is so enticing that nothing else can compare.

And even when you can encourage your child (or yourself -- adults also still need to have well-rounded experiences in the physical world, and outside their comfort zones) to go do something off the screen everyone else is still stuck on it. That's the issue I've been running into lately. Try to go do something, meet new people, etc. and a lot of them are just on their phones, if they're there at all.

It's true. The big reason that kids don't go out and play anymore is that there are no kids outside playing anymore. I live in a neighbourhood where I'm only a few blocks from 2 elementary schools and I never see any kids out playing.

A product of helicopter parenting in many respects. New parents don't tend to like the idea of letting their kids running around the neighborhood. The way those well off enough like to reconcile this with balanced lifestyle is overschedule activities for their kids. They get ze dezignated social time at hockey, soccer, karate every other night. Busy-ing a kid's life has its own pitfalls.

Treating it as an intentional choice is ignoring all the cases of "parent gets investigated or arrested for allowing child outside".

https://people.com/parents/mom-investigated-dcfs-letting-dau...

https://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/hayley-parenti...

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arreste...

That's "inside-out" helicopter parenting, where someone else is being the helicopter, not the parent. Kudos to Utah and their "free-range parenting" laws: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/29/well/family/utah-passes-f...

Local business owner was telling me that police showed up at her business with her 9 year old because the 9 year old was "out on her own". He was walking from the local business to their house, about ... 8 blocks from the business. It's a smallish town (40,000 population, but in this 'old town district', maybe 2-3000?). Police brought the kid back to the business and chastised the business owner, intimating that letting her kid walk home unattended was in violation of some law. She asked for the specific law, which pissed off the officer to no end (because there isn't one here).

What's bizarre is that the cop was probably allowed to do the same as a child.

Yeah! Certainly in my day (which wasn't that long ago!) we ... walked everywhere (or rode a bike) as a kid.

There is safety in numbers; parents will let their kids go out to play when there are other kids around. And depending on where you go in the country, you'll see groups of kids playing or you won't. But it's self feeding, as fewer kids play outside, fewer parents let their kids play outside. My kid has no reason to go outside if there is nobody out there.

True enough, I imagine it would help for kids in the neighborhood to be introduced to each other first.

> we want our children have well rounded experiences

There are some categories, like sport, where even if a kind doesn't have any interest for it, as a parent we have to force them to do a healthy minimum.

But otherwise I tend to think it's not that important to be 'well rounded' as long as the kid have tried a bunch of things. I guess if they at least had a throw at it and decided they don't like it, they know how it was and what they're missing.

From there it seems more efficient to grow their strengths and push the subjects they actually like doing. (and finding out what they like is in itself a process of trying out a variety of things to see what sticks, so both broadening their knowledge of what exists in the world and growing their strengths should go together)

I find it not that problematic because one tends to paint in broad strokes when talking about epidemiology.

If you have a sample of 1000 8-year olds, then you have at least 995 8-year olds that are doing something other than reading an academic journal.

As far as individual kids, judgement calls do have to be made, but it's very challenging to tell what your kids are doing on a screen, particularly if you have multiple kids.

> you have at least 995 8-year olds that are doing something other than reading an academic journal.

Certainly, but what the other thing is makes a huge difference. The content matters more than the medium.

I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. The book Reader, Come Home by Maryanne Wolf actually discusses this. There are quantifiable differences between reading online and reading physically. So much so that even printing out the same journal article can change it. It was an interesting read, to say the least.

I find I retain information a lot better if it's printed, and a lot of memory research supports this as well. It is a lot easier to picture a page in a physical book than even a page deliminated format like PDF.

Agreed, completely. I feel the same when hand writing something as opposed to typing as well, which is why I try to encourage my students to write and not just take pictures on their phones or type it in their phone/computer notepad

Watching YouTube. All 995 of them are watching YouTube.

I like to limit screen time no matter what the activity is simply because it means they are sitting still, with almost no muscle movement, which is not healthy. Whether you are productive on your screens or not is interesting, but not relevant to my motivation when telling my kids to get up, go outside, and move their bodies.

The exception is active games - various dancing games on the playstation are exactly how we compromise on such things.

> I find the article presenting "screen time" as if it's a single thing highly problematic

You have a great point about the multi-modal use of screens, but the Nature article isn’t the source of the lumping. Society at large, especially parents and educators and politicians, are the people concerned about screen time in general, regardless of task.

Much to your point, this article is doing the important work of actually demonstrating that general screen time may not be the sky-is-falling concern that many have, and people who are painting screen time in general as something bad might be overstating or exaggerating the problems. Perhaps there are specific uses that are bad; we may need to ask more specific questions, or we may discover that there are both advantages and disadvantages to the global social change in screen time, and it can’t be simplified into calling it a net negative.

My daughter started exhibiting some addictive behaviors with her phone so now she's limited to 1 hour of screen time daily. Here's a tiny example of her behavior now. Bed time is 10pm. It doesn't matter what is happening, at exactly 9pm she will claim to be tired, go to her room, and use her one hour of screen time. She does this even if we're actively engaged in a family activity such as playing a game together or whatever else she may enjoy doing.

It's this aspect that concerns me, that she continually chooses screen stuff over socialization with friends or family that concerns me far more than what she might specifically be doing on that screen. For what it's worth, she mostly watches vlogs on YouTube.

Have you considered that it may be natural for her to choose screen time at 9pm exactly because you have limited it to her?

Let's say she enjoys several activities equally, yet access to one of them is restricted while access to the others isn't - she can do them as often as she wants. If her bedtime then is at 10, she is allotted one hour to enjoy the restricted activity, she hasn't used that hour today, and the clock strikes 9, why shouldn't she opt for the restricted activity?

Or is your actual goal that you want her to enjoy screen time less than she currently does?

I think there's a difference between 1) wanting your kid to do other things in addition to something that they already enjoy, and to 2) expect them to enjoy it less just because you don't understand why they find it enjoyable.

I also think this is a mistake parents should be more careful about making.

From what you've written it doesn't seem like a case of true addiction to me, but if it is, I apologize, and your concern is probably justified.

Here's an example of her behavior before the 1 hour screen time limit. If we would be out doing family activities and it would be getting close to bed time she would have literal panic attacks because she "didn't get to watch enough Youtube today."

>Or is your actual goal that you want her to enjoy screen time less than she currently does?

The word "enjoy" takes on a twisted meaning once addictive behaviors set in.

Here's a list of "screen" activities that do not currently count against her hour of screen time. Any group screen activity. So if she is playing a video game with friends or family, that does not count against screen time. If she's watching anything educational, including but not limited to videos on how to complete a craft she is performing. Video games played alone but which incorporate physical activity such as "Just Dance" games do not count against screen time. If the family is watching her favorite TV show together, that does not count against "screen time." But she will leave even her favorite TV show to not miss out on her addiction fuel. And she only "willingly" participates in any other activities because her isolated screen time is restricted.

I frankly couldn't care less that she enjoys watching vlogs or videos of kids opening packages. The problem is the social isolation and lack of variety in activities.

When I was young, my parents (for some reason) decided I was lactose intolerant and strictly limited my milk intake.

To this day, I enjoy milk disproportionately.

I'm not saying screens aren't addictive, but limiting someone's access to something often makes them want it even more than they did to start with.

I welcome you to spread this token of wisdom at your next local AA meeting.

As it turns out, American college students drink in far unhealthier ways than European students. It has been suggested that it might have something to do with the absurd legal drinking age of 21.

That's irrelevant since the prohibition came after the addiction was established, not before.

Also see: Alcohol, Cannabis, Portugal's decriminalization etc.

I didn't mean to imply it wasn't sometimes worth it anyway; I apologise if it read that way.

I just meant that you shouldn't be surprised when irregular/unpredictable access to something makes people eager to take every opportunity, and that it's a factor to consider in your strategy.

I think a big difference with the AA is that usually the people going there have decided they (on some level) want to stop drinking, rather than that being an externally imposed restriction.

Back when I was a kid, one of the reasons I preferred paperbacks over hardbacks was because they were easier to hide under the pillow with a flashlight when I was reading them after bedtime. I read books during recess and whenever the teacher was covering something in class that I already knew how to do. I'd read during dinner unless my parents told me not to. Again, this isn't a problem with screens. This is a problem with what screens show you. Have you ever asked her what she does when she goes up to use her hour and, more importantly, why she chooses those activities?

>Have you ever asked her what she does when she goes up to use her hour and, more importantly, why she chooses those activities?

Why do people just impulsively presume that every parent lacks the most basic problem solving capabilities when they say they've struggled with an issue with their child? Yes, of course I've done those things.

Have gone through the same thing. Actually banned my daughter from watching YouTube because she was focusing too much on watching strangers play video games instead of interacting with us (and sometimes even her friends). Things aren't perfect, but I've definitely seen an improvement.

My 5yrs old does exactly the same. We restricted video games to only Saturdays so now he watches random people play video games on youtube all week. We're going to ban Youtube as well at least during the weekdays.

This complete speculation from my side, but I would think that playing video games themselves to be better (or less harmful) than just watching other players. If I had kids, I would be more likely to limit how much they can watch others play and let them play themselves more.

This is however hugely biased from having played a lot of video games as a kid and I felt it to be much more dynamic experience that may even help developing some mental faculties than passively watching anything.

Maybe play some videogames with your kids, if that’s what they like to do.

OP here. In my case any "group screen time" does not count as "screen time" with regards to her viewing limits. My daughter really likes Dr. Who. If we sit down as a family and watch it together, that does not count against her screen time. Playing video games in a group does not count against screen time. Playing video games alone that includes physical activity/exercise such as the "Just Dance" games does not count against screen time. Watching any educational videos including Youtube videos teaching her how to do a craft does not count against her screen time (because an activity is involved).

In spite of all these exceptions what she wants to do most is hole herself off from her friends and family to consume her addiction fuel. If it were as easy as playing a video game with her, that would be wonderful.

Are there any other activities she does for enjoyment that are solitary?

I ask because you're primarily contrasting the solitary video watching that appears to be very important to your daughter with activities that involve others. You then emphasize the solitary nature of the activity with phrases like "hole herself off". It sounds like, in part, she might be seeking solitude.

I certainly won't deny that Youtube and others encourage habitual, compulsive, or addictive behaviors in the name of "engagement", but that may not be the only thing going on.

Good point. Maybe also she watches in order to relate to other kids the next day or so? The kid version of everyone around a watercooler talking about Game of Thrones or whatever. Its plausible that friends follow the same channels.

Please stop treating me as if I'm incapable of the most trivial level of problem solving as it pertains to my own child's behavior. It's insulting. Not only does she have tons of freedom to do activities alone, I specifically listed some screen related ones that do not count against "screen time" because they involve an activity like crafts or dancing or are educational.

I am not. I do not believe myself competent to solve the parenting problems of a stranger on the internet. Rather, I am trying to bring more details of the anecdote you shared into the discussion.

No, you were implying that I didn't provide you enough information to convince you personally that my daughter was actually exhibiting addictive behaviors.

Watching YouTube videos is fine. Seeking solitude is fine. What defines addiction is not what your behavior is, it's whether or not the behavior is disrupting your life. So remarking that it sounds like she just wants to seek some solitude is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if she was "just" seeking some solitude or "just" using some drugs or "just" gambling or "just" shopping. It only matters whether those behaviors are disrupting her life. And I've made it clear that was the case by using language that includes the word addiction.

You haven't posted a single comment that makes me believe you've thought about why these things are happening rather than that they are happening.

To explain why the "why" is so important... I know someone that does amphetamine about twice a day. They have real trouble if they go too long without taking any. When their supply starts to get low they will drop anything on their calendar to make sure they don't run out. They also have a prescription for adderall, which their doctor can only fill a month at a time, and when they miss a dose their diagnosis comes roaring back in and their intellectual performance collapses.

Alternatively... I assume you're at least relatively technical. When was the last time you fixed a bug without first trying to find a root cause for it? Even if you didn't find one, fixing a bug by patching over the symptoms, without ever figuring out why it was happening?

Anyway, for all that "she's clearly addicted" and "she has panic attacks if she doesn't watch enough youtube", you haven't posted a single mention of your daughter's thoughts or motives or reasons. You talk about her like she has no agency whatsoever. Mandatory minimum daily family time that just happens to be a nice round number of minutes, "it doesn't matter what the explanation is", comparing a desire for solitude to drugs, etc. I'm going to be completely honest, you haven't done a good job convincing me that her behaviors are even maladaptive.

What videos does she watch, why does she choose those videos, how does she choose them, and why did she decide on that method? Why does she think she chooses those videos? Can she explain her process for choosing those videos? Why does she think she enjoys those videos? How much youtube does she think she needs to be watching, how did she choose that amount, and why did she choose that amount that way? What would happen if she didn't watch enough youtube? Why does she dislike that outcome? Why does she think she dislikes that outcome? Are there any videos that're more important than others? Why does she think they're more important? Why does she value youtube over family time? Why does she think she values youtube over family time?

Slippery slope! We're locked into this segmentation as well. There's no end to the rule making.

Our current position (which changes it seems every few weeks) is:

Rubbish stuff - 10 minutes per day - most youtube videos, especially vloggers in baseball caps doing Minecraft

TV - 20 minutes per day (exception because....as parents we both used to watch a fair bit of TV after school)

Worthy stuff - up to an hour a day - Nature documentaries - TED talks - youtube to research interesting things (currently Minecraft but only redstone)

I wouldn't wish enforcing this sort of regime on anyone.

I'd suggest moving the TED talks to the rubbish category. Seems safer and easier than sifting through the pile of TED talks to find the few good ones.

As I see it the issues arise less from some arbitrary level of screen time and more a lack of mobility and real live social time. With those at least you can set minimum quotas. That said, I try to work in screenlessness among sedentary activities like reading.

It's so all-encompassing, as you suggest, that I think I spend the majority of my time in front of a screen. What bothers me about it, and my work, is lethargy and isolation. So I take up some gym time. Sports would be a winner. Among friends there's always the low-fi boardgame craze. I'm not sure if it's enough.

Even with creative endeavors (say, writing, art, music) this day and age you'll find yourself (usually) reliant on technology for some part of the process.

I see a lot of concern about kids here. We were kids, growing up with screens: ultimately they're just bored and want stimulation.

> I find the article presenting "screen time" as if it's a single thing highly problematic.

While the pattern in research may be confusing, I don't know why the usage in the article—which is basically explaining research which suggests that this frequently studied question is almost certainly a nothingburger—is troubling.

I often have a similar thought when reading negative things about "screen time". If I'm going to read a book, it's probably going to be on my computer. That's also where I'd listen to music or watch youtube, though. I'm not sure if it should all just be called screen time.

The number of people for which screen time primarily means reading ebooks is vanishingly small. Screen time is just a shortcut way of talking about watching mindless YouTube/tv, social media, and gaming.

Completely agree. I've had a session where I was attempting to teach programming to my son cut short because it was considered screen time. That's obviously a very different activity than crushing candy.

Wasn't there some research done several years ago suggesting that simply the act of looking at a rapidly-flashing computer or TV screen has an effect on the brain, regardless of what's on the screen?