Should you feel guilty if your children watch TV all the time? Probably.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ubiquitous - 14 Dec 2007 14:18 GMT BY MEGHAN COX GURDON
Here is a book that seeks to answer the question that burns guiltily in the back of almost every modern parent's mind: Am I a bad person for sticking my toddler in front of the TV so that I can get a little peace and quiet around here, already?
Please note that this is a very different question from the one most parents would actually admit to asking, that one being the rather more high-minded: "Is screen time bad for little children?"
With "Into the Minds of Babes," author Lisa Guernsey manages in a balanced, lucid and practical way to address both of these questions, along with other screen-related concerns--whether about TV, or computer games, or video-game consoles, or hand-held devices--that lurk worryingly because of the way people live nowadays.
We are, after all, in the era of Baby Einstein, when multimedia packages are sold to the parents of newborns with the idea that infants may get an edge on their peers if they begin building "cognitive skills" and absorbing the rudiments of bilingualism before they've begun eating solid food. It is an era in which millions of small children spend all day apart from their parents in facilities that feature screens and are staffed by "caregivers" for whom English is not necessarily the native tongue. We live, furthermore, in a time of rising juvenile obesity and inactivity, in a country where children seem sometimes to have fallen wholesale into an alphabet soup of scary initials such as ADD and ADHD, afflictions for which frenetic children's TV shows and computer games have been partly blamed.
Ms. Guernsey is not a purist, and she's not on a campaign. She doesn't ask us to consider what an Amish-style childhood free of screens might be like or how children raised in such an old-fashioned environment might compare with the legions of day-care kids goggling at "Dora the Explorer." Instead, she starts with the sensible assumption that most American families routinely make television and other screens available to their young children. That being the case, well, what about it?
Relying on dozens of scientific studies, Ms. Guernsey explores the intricacies of trying to unpick the complicated weave of what goes on inside the head of a 1- or 2 1/2-year-old child crouched before a glowing screen. Can a person yet to speak in full sentences understand flashbacks or rapid scene changes? What about vocabulary? Will that child be quicker to absorb new words--or, having been overwhelmed, slower?
How researchers go about forming conclusions is neither simple nor always satisfying, but a great deal of inquiry has been pursued in the past few years, and more is under way even as purveyors of dubious "educational" media are pushing electronic keypads into ever-younger plump little palms.
It turns out that some children, particularly those in single-parent or low-income households, may benefit from some television programs ("Sesame Street," "Blue's Clues") but not necessarily others ("Teletubbies," "Veggie Tales"). What makes one show superior to another is almost chilling in its simplicity, given that TV commonly serves as a substitute babysitter. "The closer the product comes to simulating the way a good nursery school teacher or attentive parent talks to a young child, the better," Ms. Guernsey writes.
A stunning number of families with babies and young children--39%, in one study--keep the TV on constantly. And the effect on small children is appalling: "Always on" television has been shown to damage their ability to play imaginatively and to develop language, and it reduces the number of nurturing interactions between parents and children. One researcher told Ms. Guernsey that little children trying to learn words in the presence of constant noise are "devastatingly impaired."
Parents may not want to be told this--they can be prickly if they think you're criticizing their child-rearing practices. Ms. Guernsey uses her experience as the mother of two girls to deflect any sense that she's some sort of hard-eyed reporter-type coming to lecture weaker parents about their shortcomings. She knows how grueling it can be to spend hours with colicky infants and restless toddlers and to cast about for some way to distract them long enough for Mommy to take a shower. She is clearly hoping to smuggle in a few good parenting lessons by being nonjudgmental and more-culpable-than-thou.
It's probably a smart approach for selling a worthwhile book. But I can't help wishing that Ms. Guernsey had been less understanding and more forceful, for what her extensive research turns up is hardly any recommendation for putting small children in front of screens, whether televisions, computers or electronic teaching gadgets.
It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition of numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame Street." And young children who watched "Barney" were judged to be more polite and socially cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero shows. That's lovely, and good for them--though, again, we don't get comparisons with children raised in TV-free households.
But over and over, Ms. Guernsey's findings point away from the beneficence of the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged contact between parents and children--and between children and their own imaginations. "It is play, plain and simple play, that affords many of the most essential intellectual and social advantages for children," Ms. Guernsey says, quoting from a book called "Einstein Never Used Flashcards." At another point she writes: "Video exposure is no match for the stimulation children experience in real life. Scientists have so far come up with nothing to suggest that babies are better off watching a baby video than, say, watching Dad fold laundry."
Ms. Guernsey is tolerant and circumspect about what she has found. I don't have to be. If you have small children at home, please turn off that wretched TV.
| Mrs. Gurdon writes about children's books for The Wall Street | Journal. You can buy "Into the Minds of Babes" from the | OpinionJournal bookstore. -- It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for them, it's failing.
Taylor - 17 Dec 2007 16:55 GMT > BY MEGHAN COX GURDON > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad > for them, it's failing. "Stern rules, man!"
Ubiquitous - 31 Dec 2007 22:42 GMT > > BY MEGHAN COX GURDON > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > "Stern rules, man!" Ah, you're Stern fan! That certainly explains why you confuse the subject with the body of your postings and followups.
Steven L. - 18 Dec 2007 02:11 GMT > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition of > numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame Street." And [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged contact > between parents and children--and between children and their own imaginations. What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids between 8 AM and 6 PM?
 Signature Steven L. Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Pete B - 18 Dec 2007 07:07 GMT > > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition of > > numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame Street." And [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids > between 8 AM and 6 PM? Shouldn't have them then.
Victor Velazquez - 18 Dec 2007 13:55 GMT >> > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition >> > of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Shouldn't have them then. Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to raise kids? Speaking of which, maybe I should get my kids jobs in a coal mine instead of sending them to school.
Thanatos - 18 Dec 2007 22:21 GMT > >> > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition > >> > of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to > raise kids? It's not. But if you choose to raise your kids in such a manner that requires lots of TV time, that's fine. Just don't expect society to conform to your parenting choice and dumb-down all of the programming so that it's kid-friendly and you can feel better about your choices as a parent.
Pete B - 19 Dec 2007 22:08 GMT > > >> > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition > > >> > of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It's not. But if you choose to raise your kids in such a manner that > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural cognitive development of the children.
Victor Velazquez - 19 Dec 2007 22:17 GMT >> > > In article <13meb36aqkeucb7@corp.supernews.com>, >> > > sdlitvin@earthlink.net [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural > cognitive development of the children. There will always be studies to suggest that something everyone suspects is true is, in fact, true. But that doesn't make it true!
I'm all in favor of exposing kids to nature, art, etc. but I'm also suspicious of claims that the inherent cognitive development potential of, say, a tree is in some way superior to that provided by, say, SpongeBob. And if people think kids under 10 zone out in front of the TV (as opposed to interacting with it, each other, their toys, etc.), then they either don't have kids or they feed the ones they have too many sugary snacks.
Pete B - 20 Dec 2007 09:42 GMT > >> > > In article <13meb36aqkeucb7@corp.supernews.com>, > >> > > sdlitvin@earthlink.net [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > There will always be studies to suggest that something everyone suspects is > true is, in fact, true. But that doesn't make it true! It doesn't make it untrue just because you don't want to believe.
> I'm all in favor of exposing kids to nature, art, etc. but I'm also > suspicious of claims that the inherent cognitive development potential of, > say, a tree is in some way superior to that provided by, say, SpongeBob. > And if people think kids under 10 zone out in front of the TV (as opposed to > interacting with it, each other, their toys, etc.), then they either don't > have kids or they feed the ones they have too many sugary snacks. I don't doubt it the problems of tv for a moment, while Bhutan may have shown the general problem with tv, i think its the bane of the last century, i welcome its demise.
Thanatos - 20 Dec 2007 00:09 GMT > > > >> > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more > > > >> > recognition [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural > cognitive development of the children. Yes, but if you choose to do that to your kids, that's on you.
Pete B - 20 Dec 2007 09:43 GMT > > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. > > > > Or not - there are studies which suggest it damages the natural > > cognitive development of the children. > > Yes, but if you choose to do that to your kids, that's on you. Or society who doesn't care who has children - competent or not.
Thanatos - 20 Dec 2007 12:08 GMT > > > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Or society who doesn't care who has children - competent or not. Well, I'd rather that than some government bureaucrat deciding who can have kids and who can't.
Pete B - 20 Dec 2007 14:31 GMT > > > > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, I'd rather that than some government bureaucrat deciding who can > have kids and who can't. Its your own fault if you let government bureaucrats make laws.
David Johnston - 20 Dec 2007 20:33 GMT >> > > > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Its your own fault if you let government bureaucrats make laws. You have eliminated all the options.
Pete B - 20 Dec 2007 23:14 GMT > >> > > > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. > >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You have eliminated all the options. No you did that.
Thanatos - 21 Dec 2007 03:49 GMT > > > > > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Its your own fault if you let government bureaucrats make laws. I didn't realize it was up to me. Cool.
Pete B - 21 Dec 2007 12:18 GMT > > Its your own fault if you let government bureaucrats make laws. > > I didn't realize it was up to me. Cool. If you work for it.
Victor Velazquez - 20 Dec 2007 13:50 GMT >> > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Or society who doesn't care who has children - competent or not. A society that truly celebrates diversity will also celebrate the diverse ways in which parents raise its children.
Pete B - 20 Dec 2007 14:37 GMT > >> > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A society that truly celebrates diversity will also celebrate the diverse > ways in which parents raise its children. Indeed, such a society welcomes new religious fanatics, killers, criminals, murderers.
Diversity - more ways to subpress thy enemy.
Victor Velazquez - 20 Dec 2007 15:17 GMT >> >> > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Indeed, such a society welcomes new religious fanatics, killers, > criminals, murderers. We have to accept that we will create villains. The alternative is one prescribed way for doing everything, which you may have noticed doesn't work so well in that it creates one omnipotent villain (usually the state) rather than many relatively ineffectual ones.
> Diversity - more ways to subpress thy enemy. One of the assumptions inherent in valuing diversity is that sub-optimal ways of dealing with <whatever> will fall by the wayside as the more optimal methods tend to demonstrate their effectiveness simply by being successful. Note how few people beat their children nowadays! :-)
Pete B - 20 Dec 2007 23:12 GMT > >> >> > > requires lots of TV time, that's fine. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > so well in that it creates one omnipotent villain (usually the state) rather > than many relatively ineffectual ones. Are you sure its not the incompetency and greed of the state which causes it to fail?
> > Diversity - more ways to subpress thy enemy. > > One of the assumptions inherent in valuing diversity is that sub-optimal > ways of dealing with <whatever> will fall by the wayside as the more optimal > methods tend to demonstrate their effectiveness simply by being successful. > Note how few people beat their children nowadays! :-) I thought that was fear of being tortured in jail more than anything!
z - 21 Dec 2007 21:19 GMT > > In article <24CdneKxqJ_d7vfanZ2dnUVZ_oOnn...@comcast.com>, k- > > can...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - As much as people hate to admit it, it's another demonstration that blind evolution, for all its vast wastefulness, ends up with better results than directed thinking about things. Because sooner or later, either the well thought out plan will miss a really important flaw; or the random evolution will hit upon a really terrific but not logically obvious result. So, as you say, you end up with a lot of suboptimal product as the price, if you want to dig up the really effective techniques.
Victor Velazquez - 21 Dec 2007 23:34 GMT > As much as people hate to admit it, it's another demonstration that > blind evolution, for all its vast wastefulness, ends up with better [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > product as the price, if you want to dig up the really effective > techniques. I think you put that much better! :-)
Pete B - 22 Dec 2007 11:06 GMT In article <f7fadae1-b0e5-4e05-99f4-0cb5e8e491f1 @s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
> > > In article <24CdneKxqJ_d7vfanZ2dnUVZ_oOnn...@comcast.com>, k- > > > can...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > As much as people hate to admit it, it's another demonstration that > blind evolution, That's not blind evolution - that's human choice.
Pete B - 19 Dec 2007 22:07 GMT > >> > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition > >> > of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Why is the way children were raised a hundred years ago the only way to > raise kids? The way nature intended :)
> Speaking of which, maybe I should get my kids jobs in a coal > mine instead of sending them to school. Get them to grind gold i world of warcraft, its cleaner and may earn more!
Victor Velazquez - 19 Dec 2007 22:18 GMT >> >> > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more >> >> > recognition [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > The way nature intended :) Oh, like smallpox? ;-)
>> Speaking of which, maybe I should get my kids jobs in a coal >> mine instead of sending them to school. > > Get them to grind gold i world of warcraft, its cleaner and may earn > more! Our standard of living is a bit higher than a Chinese teenager's. :-(
Pete B - 20 Dec 2007 09:43 GMT > > Get them to grind gold i world of warcraft, its cleaner and may earn > > more! > > Our standard of living is a bit higher than a Chinese teenager's. :-( Hm, well they may have to work a bit harder at it. But hey, its killing orcs - what's not to love ;)
Thanatos - 18 Dec 2007 12:11 GMT > > It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition of > > numbers and letters when they've spent time watching "Sesame Street." And [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids > between 8 AM and 6 PM? Then they probably shouldn't have had kids.
Beliavsky - 18 Dec 2007 14:12 GMT > > What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and > > simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids > > between 8 AM and 6 PM? > > Then they probably shouldn't have had kids. It's likely that my kids (ages 1, 2, and 4) would be happier if their mother stayed home instead of working. They are, however, fond of their live-in babysitter, and they are generally happy little kids. I think life in the West is better than it has ever been, and I don't regret bringing them into this world.
Banty - 18 Dec 2007 15:31 GMT >> > What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and >> > simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >think life in the West is better than it has ever been, and I don't >regret bringing them into this world. Gee - I was going to suggest the father stay home. Why on earth should a loving father want to work all those hours and be away from his children??
Banty
Beliavsky - 18 Dec 2007 18:23 GMT > Gee - I was going to suggest the father stay home. Why on earth should a loving > father want to work all those hours and be away from his children?? So that he can gain money and power and pass on his status and perhaps his ideals to his children. There are many examples of this, for example Mitt Romney (my favored candidate for President) and his father George Romney,
(interesting story) Romney's Course Was Set Long Ago By David D. Kirkpatrick New York Times, December 18, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/us/politics/18romney.html
George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, and Al Gore and his father (also a Senator). How many diapers do you think Romney Sr. and Bush Sr. or Gore Sr. changed? Although it could be possible for mothers to pass on their high status, I don't think it happens as often. For one thing, fewer mothers than father are driven to climb the career ladder.
I'm not going to get elected dog-catcher, and I have a decent but not great career in finance. But maybe my children will do better, and I will try to help them.
I think a lot of high-earning fathers think as I do, although they would not state things so baldly.
Banty - 18 Dec 2007 19:05 GMT >>Gee - I was going to suggest the father stay home. Why on earth should a loving >> father want to work all those hours and be away from his children?? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >example Mitt Romney (my favored candidate for President) and his >father George Romney, But the mother is too busy gaining money and power and passing on her status and her ideals to her children. She needs her husband's support in this.
Banty
Victor Velazquez - 18 Dec 2007 15:34 GMT >> > What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and >> > simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > think life in the West is better than it has ever been, and I don't > regret bringing them into this world. And, more to the point, I'm sure the kids would rather exist sub-optimally than not at all.
Thanatos - 18 Dec 2007 22:18 GMT In article <7ffd19ba-9618-4661-b373-7fce18458aca@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > What if both parents have full-time jobs to which they commute, and > > > simply cannot provide "loving and engaged contact" with their kids [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > think life in the West is better than it has ever been, and I don't > regret bringing them into this world. I never said you should regret it. But if your only option is to use TV as a babysitter, and then complain when the government won't force everything on TV to be kid-friendly so that you can feel better about yourself, then the rest of will certainly regret you bringing those kids into the world.
|
|
|