Like sure, of course, don't let the kid just mindlessly watch TV. But removing the TV entirely from all spaces they could possibly be in is too extreme and the benefits of that are not clear other than expressing the parents' own maniacal anxiety which (in of itself) is not a good thing to teach the child.
Today we raise our kids the similarly: they watched some Peppa Pig and later Paw Patrol _very_ occasionally (the older one maybe starting at 3, the younger starting at 2), now (kids 6 and 8) they sometimes watch an episode of something, or we watch a movie together. Sometimes they can check out Lego sets online, or use the school-provided learning website (Anton).
The kids also have excellent detail memory and observation skills, great imagination (they tell us many stories and play with Lego in very unintended ways), very good language vocabulary and generally fly through school. Again: probably not a coincidence (even though some of it may be inherited IQ). No glasses needed so far.
I'm not saying everybody needs to do it like this exactly, but I'm happy with many decisions.
youre gonna have a hard time convincing me that rugrats and bluey are a negative impact on development.
that said, tv for a 0-1 does feel icky. like i wouldnt recommend tossing them in a bouncer in front of a tv for hours.
The way the post is framed, it makes it seem like you have to completely remove all TVs from the child's life to be consistent with the medical literature which doesn't seem correct.
Everything in moderation; an episode a day can't be too bad, but having it running all the time, or it being the only thing they watch will have consequences.
All the time makes it a digital pacifier, it'll cause anxiety if it's ever off - this is what a lot of people already have a problem with, like, I'll pull out my phone in a quiet moment. And it being the only thing they watch limits their world view and potential.
It's like books, some people only read Harry Potter or one of the YA series and it's what they (need to?) relate everything to. A newish subreddit was opened up about that, https://www.reddit.com/r/readanotherbook/. Top post has someone claiming Harry Potter's author who shall not be named was the first author writing about classism.
Most people use password123 as password, and like using the same password on every site, so saying that's bad is a bit silly?
What kind of logic is that?
> benefits of that are not clear other than expressing the parents' own maniacal anxiety which (in of itself)
The coupling of the benefits being supposedly "not clear" while "maniacal anxiety" being absolutely certain is just classic.
That's a ridiculous false equivalence and you know it.
Choosing a poor password is nowhere near analogous to the investment and energy requirement of creating completely TV-free spaces for children.
I'm questioning whether that degree of separating is consistent with the medical literature, not whether we should "do something bad because we've always done something bad"
But that's the whole argument. It's silly because many are used to it, it's too extreme a change for people who are used to it.
If the majority of people somewhere did indeed use "Password123" everywhere and had been for decades, they'd find excuses too, one of them that it's not so bad as "Password". They might have a whole process around dealing with while not seeing the fallout.
> the investment and energy requirement of creating completely TV-free spaces for children.
Huh? You simply don't turn on the TV when the kid is there. If you want to save even more money and energy, don't get a TV.
If there is a TV at a restaurant and the kid sees it, do you tell them to turn it off for you?
If you walk by the electronics section at a walmart do you demand the workers turn off all the TVs before you pass by?
Do you scout every location prior to visiting to make sure you avoid TVs at all costs?
My point is the framing of kid cannot even _hear_ the TV without ruining the child is ridiculous.
I have no idea what happened with regards to TV usage between age 0-3 though, lol. But I know it wasn't on in the background - watching TV was and remains an active activity. I could never understand why some people have a TV show on in the background while they do other things, but then I usually have music playing.
At the same time I'd never judge a parent who is using a screen. It's hard and you don't know what else they're juggling. They probably feel guilty about it as well.
Plus I have the "plank in my own eye", sometimes we let our preschooler watch videos by himself while eating or in the car. He has plenty of interactive non screen time, just...trade offs.
We also looked at kindergarten near us and apparently they use screens for a small part of the day for personalized learning modules (ahead or behind). Seems...early?
I know many parents have difficult lives, but I have to say: this isn't good.
Parenting is hard, and strangers are always brutal judges of you.
Best not to concern yourself with the opinions of strangers.
Otherwise, I don't really see your point, preschoolers rarely have access to TVs where I live.
I'd be interested to know if this makes children "text-blind" and relates to increased struggles with reading and writing as they get older. It seems a theme in 6-10 year olds from teachers at the moment.
That might be what pediatricians say to YOU, or what they would give as generic aspirational goals, but frankly I think generic aspirational goals are silly.
Wouldn't no screens ever be safer at all ages if you're worried about screens? Its not like teens don't have problems with social media...
I think its important to separate recommendations from ideals.
For one, an ideal is not pragmatic and is only true "all other things being equal". It ignores trade-offs.
Second, an ideal for one is an ideal for all, but a recommendation for one is not a recommendation for all.
Do you also eat only vegetables, never smoke or drink, and go on a run for 30 minutes every day (of course same for kids as well)? Do you practice gratitude and volunteer weekly?
My point is simply that less screens is probably directionaly correct, but pushing consistent standards or recommendations is silly. Everyone is at a different level and should have different goals. We should all work on using less screens in whatever way we can, and understand how far we are from an ideal, and what damage is caused by that mismatch, but we shouldn't act like one arbitrary standard is actually magically correct and should be a global requirement.
Modern day Furbies?
Although I am not sure how much it shaped my life since self reflection is quite hard.
These should be universal, even if some culture will first disagree and want to do things differently because they think they know better, in the end it will converge to the same, like it did for lead paint on toys, asbestos in housing, radium-dial watches, thalidomide for morning sickness for pregnant women, X-rays for shoe-fitting, etc.
0-3 yrs old: no screens at all. No TV playing when they are in the room, even if they can only hear the sound. Refrain from using your phone too long when they are in the room with you, they need to see your face react to them to learn human interaction.
3-6: no screens used alone. No internet. Interactive content with a parent is ok, not regularly, not in the bedroom.
6-9: may discover safe internet spaces, with help from parents.
9-12: can learn to manage their screen time, protect their private life, develop critical thinking.
12+: no screens at night, talk to your kid about what they do online, more autonomy.
This is what we follow (refraining from using the phone ourselves is prolly the hardest to do), they have never watched cartoons alone, they love old point'n'click games on the PC with me, we share the mouse, and I thought they would ask for more and more screen time, they don't. They actually want to read books with parents, paint, draw, build, go outside, ride a bicycle, invite friends. Maybe we're lucky. They don't throw tantrums in their seat, they sometimes do while grocery shopping, it's difficult, but I would never use a screen to stop it.
So, I don't see how this kind of device can be useful and safe at any age. It seems designed to cause the infamous "iPad kid" syndrome or get them hooked on Amazon products even younger than before.
But there's even worse in stores today: AI assistant integrated plushies.