A Q for strict parents who only allow their kids a tiny amount of time to watch TV

[Els]

You commented, I replied to that comment. Sometimes what someone writes isn't worth replying to. Try it some time.

 

Actually, I think I will. Since no matter what I say, all that your mental faculties are capable of conjuring up will be, "TV IS EVIL ELSWYTH SAYS TV IS NOT EVIL SO SHE MUST THINK THAT ITS OK TO LET KIDS WATCH 10 HOURS OF IT A DAY WTF".

 

Good luck with everything, I mean it.

[turnera]

Every single one of your posts that I listed there quoted mine. If you're commenting to someone else, don't quote mine. If you quote mine, I'll assume that you're responding to MY post. Go ahead and point out how my 'logic was faulty'.

Actually, you put this as proof that I was replying to you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elswyth

Is this called balance to you? Seriously, have some logic in your arguments, or at least read the posts you quote and tell me where I advocated letting children watch TV as much as they like, much less 10 hours a day.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by turnera

Exactly. There are lots of benefits of showing your kids how to fish, of going biking with them, of having them help you strip your car, of reading a book together, working on a jigsaw puzzle together, of going camping...of basically creating a life for your kids where they know that they are your priority and they are loved and wanted. As well as sending them outside every day and saying 'go have fun' and letting them figure out HOW to have fun on their own, using their own minds. Rather than letting a tv or computer screen do that FOR them.

 

But when I went back to see, it was really this, thus the faulty logic comment:

 

Originally Posted by Ross MwcFan

Lol, I never said there were benefits of spending 15 hours in front of a screen.

 

Originally Posted by turnera

Exactly. There are lots of benefits of showing your kids how to fish, of going biking with them, of having them help you strip your car, of reading a book together, working on a jigsaw puzzle together, of going camping...of basically creating a life for your kids where they know that they are your priority and they are loved and wanted. As well as sending them outside every day and saying 'go have fun' and letting them figure out HOW to have fun on their own, using their own minds. Rather than letting a tv or computer screen do that FOR them.

 

I believe I also said I watch a ton of reality tv; seems kind of silly to assert that I say 'tv is evil' when I readily admit to watching it.

 

Enough. Sorry to T/J, guys. Carry on.

[turnera]

Good article:

The percentage of overweight children in the United States is growing at an alarming rate, with 1 out of 3 kids now considered overweight or obese.

Many kids are spending less time exercising and more time in front of the TV, computer, or video-game console. And today's busy families have fewer free moments to prepare nutritious, home-cooked meals. From fast food to electronics, quick and easy is the reality for many people.

Preventing kids from becoming overweight means adapting the way your family eats and exercises, and how you spend time together. Helping kids lead healthy lifestyles begins with parents who lead by example

Overweight and Obesity

[Ross MwcFan]

That's okay.

 

Yeah I've never had much motivation and I've always suffered from depression I think, I think in fact before I had the things that I enjoy doing now, before I had a computer, before I had the material things that I enjoy now, and when there was hardly anything to watch on the TV, because of feeling very bored in life which caused me to feel more depressed, I think this actually caused me to feel even less motivated, my morale was a lot lower.

 

These days, I think because I feel better in myself, because where I'm living people seem to be a lot nicer and friendlier (most where I used to live weren't that nice, in fact there a lot of people had an attitude and were quite rude), because people on here, and my therapist have actually made me think about getting out there more, because I'm more likely to find an interest which involves getting out there and/or being around other people, and I think because I'm older now and maybe my tastes have changed, I do actually want to get out there more, go for a walk in the park on a sunny day, socialise with nice people, have a job that I enjoy, get my own place, maybe a relationship, etc. But obviously even if I do achieve these things, I'll still want to spend some of my time doing the things I enjoy doing now, like playing video games or whatever, I'm not going to want to limit myself to just 30 mins a day of doing these things. Like myself and Elswyth have said, the key here is balance.

 

Oops, I ment to say, because now I have the Internet I'm more likely to find an interest which involves getting out there and/or being around other people

[Ross MwcFan]

And volunteering. Have you tried that yet, Ross? IMO, there's NOTHING better to bring you out of unhappiness, than to help someone/thing/place that needs help more than you do. Plus you meet some great people that way.

 

Not yet but I will make an attempt at it eventually.

[Els]

That's okay.

 

Yeah I've never had much motivation and I've always suffered from depression I think, I think in fact before I had the things that I enjoy doing now, before I had a computer, before I had the material things that I enjoy now, and when there was hardly anything to watch on the TV, because of feeling very bored in life which caused me to feel more depressed, I think this actually caused me to feel even less motivated, my morale was a lot lower.

 

These days, I think because I feel better in myself, because where I'm living people seem to be a lot nicer and friendlier (most where I used to live weren't that nice, in fact there a lot of people had an attitude and were quite rude), because people on here, and my therapist have actually made me think about getting out there more, because I'm more likely to find an interest which involves getting out there and/or being around other people, and I think because I'm older now and maybe my tastes have changed, I do actually want to get out there more, go for a walk in the park on a sunny day, socialise with nice people, have a job that I enjoy, get my own place, maybe a relationship, etc. But obviously even if I do achieve these things, I'll still want to spend some of my time doing the things I enjoy doing now, like playing video games or whatever, I'm not going to want to limit myself to just 30 mins a day of doing these things. Like myself and Elswyth have said, the key here is balance.

 

Hey, Ross.

 

Something struck me about your posts that I wasn't able to address earlier, btw. When you read people talking about them limiting their children's usage, you seemed to automatically put yourself in the children's place. Would that be right?

 

I think, if correct, that is something you should try not to do. You're an adult now, have been for a long time, and things that apply to children no longer apply to you. IMO it would be healthier for you to relate to the parents instead of the children. How you perceive yourself is greatly related to your progress in moving towards genuine independence and adulthood, as I know you're trying to do now. So it may help you if you try to avoid this sort of self-correlations.

 

Just my opinions. Glad to hear that you've been out and about doing things. Remember that we're still rooting for you.

[turnera]

Oops, I ment to say, because now I have the Internet I'm more likely to find an interest which involves getting out there and/or being around other people

That's a great idea. Here they have this thing like a dating site but not, where the company/website just organizes stuff to do all over town (actually they have pods all over the US) for singles. Not dates but stuff like skydiving or kayaking or paintball or even video game contests. That way you can meet people who like to do the same things you do.

[Ross MwcFan]

Hey, Ross.

 

Something struck me about your posts that I wasn't able to address earlier, btw. When you read people talking about them limiting their children's usage, you seemed to automatically put yourself in the children's place. Would that be right?

 

Definatley! I never expected anyone to pick that up. I do this with other things too, I've got no idea why I do it, I mean all it does is that it makes me feel really down, and it makes me want to explain my point of view of why it wouldn't be a good idea for me or a kid like me and why it would be so terrible, hoping that I can make these people understand.

 

I think, if correct, that is something you should try not to do. You're an adult now, have been for a long time, and things that apply to children no longer apply to you. IMO it would be healthier for you to relate to the parents instead of the children. How you perceive yourself is greatly related to your progress in moving towards genuine independence and adulthood, as I know you're trying to do now. So it may help you if you try to avoid this sort of self-correlations.

 

I've put myself in the parents place as well.

 

Just my opinions. Glad to hear that you've been out and about doing things. Remember that we're still rooting for you.

 

Thanks!

 

I hope people don't think I've given up because I've not made any new progress in my life for quite a while now, it's just a very long slow process, but I think all the while I've been making progress on my 'self' if you know what I mean.

[Ross MwcFan]

That's a great idea. Here they have this thing like a dating site but not, where the company/website just organizes stuff to do all over town (actually they have pods all over the US) for singles. Not dates but stuff like skydiving or kayaking or paintball or even video game contests. That way you can meet people who like to do the same things you do.

 

I will actually look into that kind of thing at seom point, I'm just concentrating on trying to get myself to go to that place to fill in a form for voluntary work.

 

I felt so close to feeling like I could do it several weeks ago, but then something cropped up and I've had to put it off. I'm hoping that when I have the problem sorted out, that I'll feel as ready and as comfortable with going to this place as what I did do.

[turnera]

Is there anyone else you can talk into going with you? Accountability partners are great for getting you to stick to your plan.

[Els]

Definatley! I never expected anyone to pick that up. I do this with other things too, I've got no idea why I do it, I mean all it does is that it makes me feel really down, and it makes me want to explain my point of view of why it wouldn't be a good idea for me or a kid like me and why it would be so terrible, hoping that I can make these people understand.

 

I understand in a way. My parents were extremely strict and treated me very much like a child right up to the time I left home, which was some time after I hit 18. Because of that, my own mentality saw myself as a child. I identified with 'children', as you do. Swiftly after I left and got my mind in order after two decades of coddling, I realized that if I wanted people to treat me differently and if I wanted progress, I needed to stop seeing MYSELF as a child. I still love my parents, but my time of being a child is long over, and even if they cannot see that, I can and must.

 

Thanks!

 

I hope people don't think I've given up because I've not made any new progress in my life for quite a while now, it's just a very long slow process, but I think all the while I've been making progress on my 'self' if you know what I mean.

 

I think you've come a long way, and I personally am happy for you.

[Chocolat]

I don't really think you can assume that all parents who don't allow a lot of TV watching are generally strict in all other areas of life. The OP was specifically about TV viewing and video games, and the assertion was put forward that denying your child "a lot more time" for TV and video could potentially cause depression in children. I think it is this assertion in particular that a lot of posters reacted against, and I find that to be a very different topic from 30 year olds having a curfew at midnight or putting a ten year old to bed at 7.

 

Amen.

 

No offense, but you haven't read my post properly. You've completely missed my point and thought I was making a different one.

 

What is your point? Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

 

I was reacting to the assertion that TV and computers in themselves are horrible things (akin to marijuana, according to a certain poster ), and inferior hobbies compared to jigsaw puzzles, etc.

 

But tv has been shown to have a negative effect on cognitive development and school achievement, where jiggsaw puzzles have not.

 

The mean time spent watching television during childhood and adolescence was significantly associated with leaving school without qualifications and negatively associated with attaining a university degree. Risk ratios for each hour of television viewing per weeknight, adjusted for IQ and sex, were 1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.65) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.67-0.85), respectively (both, P<.001). The findings were similar in men and women and persisted after further adjustment for socioeconomic status and early childhood behavioral problems. Television viewing during childhood (ages 5-11 years) and adolescence (ages 13 and 15 years) had adverse associations with later educational achievement. However, adolescent viewing was a stronger predictor of leaving school without qualifications, whereas childhood viewing was a stronger predictor of nonattainment of a university degree.

 

Source: Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

 

Television watching has also been linked to obestity.

 

I find it interesting that the most vocal proponents of tv-watching in this thread are non-parents!

[zengirl]

I'm not a parent, but I am an educator. Language arts now includes visual media and the understanding of it.

 

Here's an interesting article:

 

Does watching TV make us stupid? | Psychology Today

 

Results for children of impoverished parents are altogether different. The more TV they watch, the better their grades. If parents are not stimulating, then the kids do better watching the idiot box than conversing with their parents, sad to say. Incidentally, it is not just a stereotype that poor homes are intellectually impoverishing. Observational research has shown that parents on welfare spend far less time talking to their children than working class, or professional parents, resulting in an impoverished vocabulary.

 

In middle class families, excessively high TV watching per day DOES often correlate with lower grades, though as the article says, findings are murky and contradictory at best, but other study aspects suggest that's likely not due to TV but lessened child/parent interaction in those homes.

 

This is particularly interesting:

 

So much for families! What about countries? Children in wealthier nations score higher on IQ, do better in tests of school learning, and attain higher levels of education. (The U.S. is often highlighted as a relatively under achieving affluent country, particularly in math and science, but it can be considered the exception that tests the rule).

 

How does one account for the greater academic success in wealthy countries? It could be that they have more money to invest in schools, that parents prepare their children better for success in education, or that daily life requires more complex thinking and problem-solving. One way of combining all of these explanations is to note that education and intelligence are more important for success in urban economies than they are on farms. Alternatively, children in wealthy countries receive more brain stimulation through mass media.

 

When I analyzed the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (conducted in 1999), I found that the academic advantages of wealthier countries were explainable in terms of the number of newspapers printed and the number of TV sets per thousand people (1). Availability of televisions was particularly important for achievement in science.

 

To some degree, processing visual media makes you smarter. Now, I'm not saying anyone became brilliant by watching sitcoms, and I'm not saying all visual media is the same -- but understanding it does take brain function and comprehension skills, even understanding the basest possible form.

 

Another study mentioned in that article:

 

Fortunately, another study, Progress in International Reading Literacy (2001), asked children about their use of leisure time, including TV viewing and computer access. Countries in which a larger proportion of children watched TV every day had higher reading achievement scores, which implies that they have higher IQ scores (as these two are very highly correlated). Daily access to computers provided similar benefits. What is more, use of these electronic media fully explained why children in affluent countries do better in school.

 

And there's no study on how restricting time in a per-minutes way could help kids, rather what those "kids who watch over 3 hours per day enter the danger zone" type studies suggest is that in a middle class HH, kids whose parents engage with them are advantaged in school AND probably have reduced time for TV watching due to being involved in other things. There is no suggestion that reducing TV time will get kids involved in other things or that TV itself hinders children.

[turnera]

Countries in which a larger proportion of children watched TV every day had higher reading achievement scores,

One could also say that children who watched TV every day are more likely to be living in wealthier nations (since those in poorer nations are less likely to have access to or afford a tv) and, therefore, they are getting a better education. Doesn't mean the TV made them read better.

[zengirl]

One could also say that children who watched TV every day are more likely to be living in wealthier nations (since those in poorer nations are less likely to have access to or afford a tv) and, therefore, they are getting a better education. Doesn't mean the TV made them read better.

 

The study suggests a causative link, if you read it. It's not 100% confirmed, but it's more causative than any of the research suggesting TV is harmful. Really, we don't know. However: Wealthier nations have more television, which the studies suggest is part of why they have higher achievement scores. That would mean the invention of television DOES do some good and watching television DOES stimulate the brain.

 

ETA: I will say I've both read a lot of and done a bit of research on language development and television, particularly 2nd language development, and television and other multi-media have huge benefits for that forum. I maintain my fluency in Spanish by watching Spanish TV shows since I don't really have cause to use it often.

Edited June 27, 2012 by zengirl

[denise_xo]

The study suggests a causative link, if you read it. It's not 100% confirmed, but it's more causative than any of the research suggesting TV is harmful. Really, we don't know. However: Wealthier nations have more television, which the studies suggest is part of why they have higher achievement scores. That would mean the invention of television DOES do some good and watching television DOES stimulate the brain.

 

ETA: I will say I've both read a lot of and done a bit of research on language development and television, particularly 2nd language development, and television and other multi-media have huge benefits for that forum. I maintain my fluency in Spanish by watching Spanish TV shows since I don't really have cause to use it often.

 

Can you point out the causative link in the study? Genuine question. I'm trying to make sense of the article but I'm not overly steady in quantitative methods.

[zengirl]

Can you point out the causative link in the study? Genuine question. I'm trying to make sense of the article but I'm not overly steady in quantitative methods.

 

The causative link is in the actual study cited in the article, not in the article. And it's not proof of causation, mind you, as I said, and as the article states.

 

About PIRLS 2011 (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study)

 

This links to the year it was published. I can't find anything I would link here that you could access. I know the study because I've referenced that organization and their studies previously for graduate work - both their 2001 and 2006 studies. I wish I could find a link!

 

From what I can tell, in these and other studies, what it comes down to is stimulus. For middle class parents, who speak English (or the common language children learn in at school) and are intellectually stimulating, TV is a poor substitute. But that doesn't mean TV is 'bad' per se. Just that letting TV parent your kids is bad!

[denise_xo]

The causative link is in the actual study cited in the article, not in the article. And it's not proof of causation, mind you, as I said, and as the article states.

 

About PIRLS 2011 (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study)

 

This links to the year it was published. I can't find anything I would link here that you could access. I know the study because I've referenced that organization and their studies previously for graduate work - both their 2001 and 2006 studies. I wish I could find a link!

 

From what I can tell, in these and other studies, what it comes down to is stimulus. For middle class parents, who speak English (or the common language children learn in at school) and are intellectually stimulating, TV is a poor substitute. But that doesn't mean TV is 'bad' per se. Just that letting TV parent your kids is bad!

 

 

I think this is the original study he is referring to:

 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003073.pdf

 

What I have difficulties finding, is what can back up this claim in the article

 

Fortunately, another study, Progress in International Reading Literacy (2001), asked children about their use of leisure time, including TV viewing and computer access. Countries in which a larger proportion of children watched TV every day had higher reading achievement scores, which implies that they have higher IQ scores (as these two are very highly correlated). Daily access to computers provided similar benefits. What is more, use of these electronic media fully explained why children in affluent countries do better in school.

 

I also find the assertion in italics a bit tenuous. I haven't been through the whole report yet, though.

 

But yes, I'm sure 'appropriate' stimulus plays a significant role in learning, and that different kind of media can contribute to that.

[sb129]

I just want to clarify something again because I get the feeling that people are taking the per minute restriction thing the wrong way.

 

I restrict my not quite three year old daughters tv viewing to 20minutes because that is the length of one episode of her favourite show.

 

I don't restrict it to 20minutes for any other reason. She does get to use the iPad probably every second day and she is almost more skilled on it than I am.

Two episodes is too long for her, although as she gets older I imagine she is going to want to watch movies which I will be fine with.

In fact I am looking forward to taking her to the movies for the first time.

[Els]

I just want to clarify something again because I get the feeling that people are taking the per minute restriction thing the wrong way.

 

I restrict my not quite three year old daughters tv viewing to 20minutes because that is the length of one episode of her favourite show.

 

I don't restrict it to 20minutes for any other reason. She does get to use the iPad probably every second day and she is almost more skilled on it than I am.

Two episodes is too long for her, although as she gets older I imagine she is going to want to watch movies which I will be fine with.

In fact I am looking forward to taking her to the movies for the first time.

 

I personally think your approach seems fairly balanced, and doesn't include the undue vilifying that I was talking about.