I know this is true, but why is it true? We have a 4 month old, she gets very nearly zero screen time, but on the rare occasion I have her on my lap for a few minutes during a meeting, playing a game, or video chatting with overseas family/friends, she is enamored and, yes, pacified. What precisely is the harm in that vs "a toy they will grow out of?"
I will also add I had what I have long considered it a privilege that I had been introduced to computers at a very young age, as well as the internet (for better or (probably mostly?) worse).
Intuitively, that doesn't look healthy to me, I don't need to look at data to know that. Especially because it's not a reaction that he has to anything else (no other thing, even things he likes a lot, sucks his attention that much... breastfeeding gets close but even when breastfeeding he's less of a zombie than in front of a screen, he does play with things using his hand, foot, etc.) so it doesn't feel normal. And I find it very sad to see kids who spend hours a day in that state instead of interacting with the world, playing, etc.
At 4 months old it's not so obvious because they interact less in general and don't have a lot of obvious states beyond "crying" and "not crying", but check his reactions to the screen when she gets a little older and you will see.
So relaxed (or very activated)? Generally what people think of when they say "like they're on drugs" are just normal states that they disapprove of because it suits the narrative. In this case, the narrative is "screen time is bad". That means it is suitable to condemn it by making a parallel with something destructive, to make it feel like it has some association (which it neither physically nor mentally has been proven to have).
We have some casual acquaintance we visited two or three times. Their then-4yo was constantly on an iPad on YouTube Kids, switching videos every 20 seconds. Just watching him was infuriating. You had rather innocent or mundane videos of e.g. model trains driving around, but before you could start to pay attention to any details or any kind of narrative, he'd switch to a video of kids in a swimming pool full of orbeez, then something Sesame-street-like. And they just let him keep doing that since he'd throw a tantrum if they take away the iPad. They have to let him watch that stuff at the table, otherwise he wouldn't eat. Fast forward to last year, he got into elementary school and was absolutely unable to pay attention to anything. Teachers made him see doctors, he's on medication now, but that was half a year ago so no idea how things are going today.
Now I'm sure someone will pull the "are we sure we got cause and effect right here?" card, but even if that kid had some kind of predisposition, nobody can tell me that just putting up with the kid's tantrums when he was still four (or whatever age he started at, this was just when I first saw this) and taking away the iPad, going outside more would not have significantly improved the outcome here.
Wether enough scientific fact has been gathered to understand the inner workings and circumstances are irrevelant, the cognitive weight of TV exist as a matter of fact.
Now there are of course difference between TV and monitor and screen time. What causes the problems are TV like stuff - passive, movie-ish information. Drawing lines in paint or typing buttons to see them appear on notepad is definetly another thing - the information flow and actions there are controlled by the kid and there is another huge difference if the parent is there explaining. Not the monitor itself is the problem, but the absolutely overwhelming quantities of raw information which designed specifically to catch and hold an adults attention. Kids simply have no means to absorb or escape it.
On my experience kids over 4-6 years starts to absorb some of the information and kids over 8 can sit through a disney movie with sufferable consequences.
She describes everything, she learns stuff, and even tell me about the game afterwards by herself (she is 3). The major problem is that she does not realize when she is bored or tired. To be fair, that's a problem with many activities, but boredom with toys is way more evident (she would just step away), while with videogames she would just get incredibly demanding (I can't do this, I can't do that, this is scary, changes level, even though it's stuff she has already done). She also chooses and replays the same levels to discover more (and she does!)
If the kid reads/solves and then behaves normally, then it is different.
I have observed, as many other parents have as well, that if the kids spend too much time in front of the screen (> 20 minutes, give or take), they become resistant, moodier, and worse behaved. This is not true if we're playing a board game or having reading time. So, I think a bit of moderation is important.
Incidentally, since having kids, I've also noticed that I am short-tempered if I spend too much time in front of the screen, a good reminder to take a walk a few times during the day.
2.) What you said is purely ridiculous. The "tamptrums should never happen" is wishful thinking. It is a goal to produce adult that don't throws tamptrums.
3.) Kids behavior is in fact heavily dependent on environment. Half of classroom management and child raising is literally all about that.
4.) Even many adults rage when gaming and after. Evan adults are irritable and annoyed after gaming.
This is not true and is extremely unrealistic thinking.
Also: some traits of your children's personality form very young, regardless of your style of parenting. Your influence is strong of course, but some things are just due to the way your kid is wired. You can set an example, and be firm about bad behavior, but some shit is going to happen anyway, tantrums included, depending on the personality of your children.
And to hell who said you get used to the smell. Second kid and I still breathe with my mouth during the diaper change.
Our family however grew up with TV from early age and we do not have the zombie trait.
Yes, exactly. Screens are extremely addictive to kids. (Adults too, I suppose, but that's their own responsibility.)
No, wrong. What can be addictive is the content displayed by the screen and the eventual interaction that the kid have with this content.
Put a kid in front of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viOkh9al0xM (`This is the Train Driver's/engineers/operator/conductors view from the Bergen Line and the Famous Flåm Railway in Norway in Northern Europe.`), and start a 30s countdown: the kid will have left the screen before, guaranteed.
The screen itself is addictive. Content can vary, but as long as it's not just a block color without sound or movement, many kids will find themselves glued to it.
My two 8/10y old boys won't. Great, there's two data point now, we can plot a trend!
> The screen itself is addictive.
Is a switched off screen addictive too?
If your answer is along 'of course not, I just said that content can vary, use your brain, fill in the gaps geez', then that was exactly my point to the GP: no, screen are not systematically addictive per-se, the addiction lies in the viewer's behavior when consuming a specific content.
You were generalizing, I showed you an instance were what you said didn't hold; and I know more cases. You bet that train videos were boring to kids and I proved you wrong in the general case.
> Is a switched off screen addictive too?
This question is absurd. A switched off screen is, for all intents and purposes, not a screen.
My argument is that my kid and many others are instantly attracted to screens as long as they show motion and sound, and that it doesn't have to be a children's cartoon or song.
Switched on screens remain powerful attractors for many children.
The GP was!
> I'm sorry, I can't agree with your point.
At least we're getting somewhere!
gp: Screens are extremely addictive to kids
me: wrong, any kid will not like train video
you: wrong, mine is, the screen itself is addictive.
me: no, screen are not systematically addictive per-se, the addiction lies in the viewer's behavior when consuming a specific content, or are switched off screens intrinsically addictive?
you: this is absurd, a switch off screen is not a screen, let me rephrase for you: switched on screens remain powerful attractors for many children
Next round is where we agree that, actually, its the content showed on a switched on screen that can or cannot trigger attraction for a child: yours is ok with trains, mines are not.
But I'll stop here, that was fun, but I've got some other things to handle.
You can use screen positively: the kid is able to describe back what is being seen, something reasonable is going on.
I'm not saying it's negative. I usually bond with my daughter over things we watch together. It can be sometimes hard to unglue her from the screen, but I have some tactics that sometimes work (we don't watch TV or screens over dinner, so if she's hungry she has to turn it off. I can also convince her to turn it off if I go play with her, something that I also enjoy!).
We do however one thing. She is allowed to get off the table when she wants, but if she does we take away her plate because she is done. We are a bit "elastic" on this because sometimes she gets down to grab something and goes back, or her brother is really distracting. However if she goes to the tv the plate is gone immediately (there is an informatory call before she reaches the tv "i see you are done with the food. Are you full?").
That has been working well. When she actually gets up she is done with food.
It is also a great signal to figure out when she is constipated. She would almost skip 1 or 2 meals, then eat a lot once she is done.
If you put the kid in front of tablet without fun stuff, the kid will get bored quickly.
And even if you put games there, games are not created equals. Some games make them happy, engaged and they stop playing them fairly easy. Other games makes them grumpy, angry and they will act out when you want them to end.
It can be videos of cartoons of course, but also videos of trains, trucks, animals, sometimes she finds a programming-related conference I'm watching interesting (less interesting than a cartoon, but interesting enough to pay attention).
She is not in trance like other parents described, she actually describes to me everything she does (which turns frustrating when you are focused). She also shuts the game down "after 1 level", when asked. Or immediately if necessary (we don't want to use that card, we want to respect her time).
I think there is a big difference in the type of videogame. She has the best hand-eye coordination of her class (games are played with a controller) and she developed concepts like "background vs foreground", as well as aiming and an enormous amount of other things.
That being said, after a certain amount of time, she will get unsettled. If she doesn't move away by herself, you have to remind her. What I think I see is "unrecognized boredom". She doesn't realize that yet, although she is getting better (I saw her pause and go do something else more than once lately).
Finally, I play videogames with her. That has been amazing so far, I'm glad we did.
All of this to say: toys gets boring way faster, but it's also easier to detect boredom. Creative toys do help, that's basically why duplo/wooden train/magnets are the top 3.
I play with her and we have to buy new toys mainly because I get bored to play always with them (keep in mind that we talk about many, many sessions). Given that, yeah, I can see her getting bored faster. Videogames have way more content and variation.
Do remember that paper, glue and colors are very cheap and can create a lot of stuff though!
It does matter what the screen does and what plays on it. If you use it to chat with family or play youtube videos targeted at adults (like crafts or lectures), the kid will get bored quite quickly. If you put there teletubbies or kiddy game, the kid will watch for long.
If you pack tablet with only drawing software and selected kiddy games, you will have good experience. If you put there games addictive to kids or games that stresses them, you will have bad experience. If you put there too difficult games, the kid will have no use for it.
It really depends a lot on which software/games/activities you choose and how you setup house rules. And at this age, you have all the control.
I do agree a tablet and the TV are similar in this regard.
We grew with mine with a screen always on (work from home). We watch animes during lunch or as background when doing boring work. We play videogames, so more exposure.
Point is, unless there is relevant content, she won't look at the screen (3 years old).
We skip all the videos for kids (we do have occasional movies), but those videos with songs made me want to smash the screen, she just turns braindead.
I wonder if all it's needed is a parent observing behavior and evolution of behavior to determine each activity's health based on a kid-by-kid basis, rather than generalizing.
Also, you can change this behavior. It is crucial that you build a positive relationship with him and pull him out from the screen and into your life. Not sure how old your son is, but try setting aside a day or half a day where you both leave your phones and spend the time talking or doing an activity together.
On the other hand, I did find that the more time you give your child playing with toys uninterrupted, the more their attention span for that improves.
The world has changed both with our roles are parents and the environment which we exist in. My 2 year old would quite happily be able to order food via an unavoidable touch screen interface at a fast food restaurant!
Now.. to get him started with vim.
What is bad is when the computer/tablet/phone becomes a pacifier that parents park their kids in front of. Better to give them actual toys that they will grow out of, rather than a screen that they won't.