> Among children whose parents read to them frequently at age three, the link between infant screen time and altered brain development was significantly weakened.
It sounds a bit like the problem might not be so much "heavy screen time" as "heavy screen time, plus no alternative stimulation". Not defending heavy screen time at all, just thought it was an interesting tidbit.
I would tend to agree with that. I can even see in my own kids changes in behavior when external factors affect my own ability to be attentive to my kids.
There seems to be a lot of news around about digital devices paired with some age group leading to emotional or mental damage. TVs have been around 70 years. I'm not convinced devices are a relatively damaging factor in mental health development. Would I rather my child be using a phone or drinking lead-laced water or smoking? The evidence for chemical and biological consequences are more clear-cut and those took decades of measurable evidence. Studies, like these, seem more like trying to fit an assumed conclusion by plausibly random selection bias. Are these studies narrowing the field at all?
TV in the past didn't try to gaslight you into guilt or show all kinds of viral content and instant reactions. Except for news channels, most were slightly addictive at best. Even popular TV shows, you would have to wait for a week for the next episode and you couldn't binge. Screen time today is way different than even 20 years ago.
I think I can hear your point through the unnecessary snark. You're implying the field is narrowed to a kind of social engineering, rather than the screen itself.
Why does the study say screen time when the effects are, ostensibly, not about the screen? Again, a conclusion/agenda in search of evidence necessarily makes biased assumptions. THIS study (as with others) mischaracterizes itself. Seems like a questionable study from the outset. This is a poor approach to analysis.
This was a commentary on the sort of person who takes the phrase "screen time" seriously—a much broader cultural and social issue than the study itself could reasonably evaluate.
See that the former president of Harvard was caught plagiarism and the former Sanford president resigned due to fraudulent data, the chances may be >0! Just need to lie, cheat, or commit fraud to get in!
This comment has started a very annoying and unproductive debate that’s basically just parenting hot take tropes and judgmental parents explaining why their way is best so I’m just editing it away.
> You’re at a restaurant and your toddler is trying to run away and generally make a mess out of everything
I don't think toddlers should be at most restaurants. I have a toddler and a 7 month old. I'm not even saying that for the sake of the other patrons. There's really nothing fun whatsoever about being at restaurant with your toddler. We don't even have bad outcomes, but you're sort of trapped in your seat, it's messy, it's expensive, and you're constantly keeping your toddler in line.
Restaurant food is really not so good as to overcome those issues.
Horses for courses. Our we let our 2yo run riot at restaurants while we enjoy our food. It was an adaptation for my wife, for sure. I love it and best I can tell other patrons and staff love how comfortable our daughter is in the environment.
I suppose that would depend on the restaurant / patron.
For example, in Texas there are loads of TexMex restaurants and Hispanic cultures actually embrace children as part of the environment vs Western European cultures (which I was raised in) which don’t so much.
Yes, I am. And my spouse and I managed to raise two kids under the age of two without giving them an iPad. Yeah, it meant we didn't go to restaurants as much and that the house wasn't as clean as it was before. It's all trade offs.
I'm not saying this to say I'm a better parent than you are, but you don't __need__ an iPad or to plop them in front of a tv. Claims otherwise are just excuse making.
I wholeheartedly agree. I raised 5 kids 1 to 1.5 years apart before there were iPads or iPhones. We went to restaurants with them regularly and they did fine. We had the occasional issue but not often. More often we would get compliments on how well behaved. This absolutely possible.
Parent of 3 here. It's not just possible. It's quite normal for young kids to be well behaved in public places without having an electronic baby sitter.
We're lucky these things didn't exist before the introduction of the iPad, otherwise parenting would have been completely impossible and there wouldn't be any humans
I'm a parent (age 7 and 5 now). We had a strict no screen policy before the age of two, which really meant the oldest saw very little until after the second was born. It isn't that hard to live a normal life without screen in the home. I think a big part of the problem nowadays is making sure home is for home stuff. Not just work, but all other non-home stuff (preparing taxes, discussing bills, online banking, online health insurance bullshit, and so on) has infiltrated our homes. I've found that reserving a block of time to tackle that stuff instead of trying to do it throughout the makes parenting more manageable without giving children a screen.
Both my kids really struggled at night for years, and I sypmpathize with the lack of sleep.
Oh woe is me! Sometimes your kid is going to cry. They’ll make a scene. Who cares that’s what children do. That doesn’t mean you throw an iPad in front of them so that they’ll shut up. I swear my fellow millennials are the worst parents because they won’t let their kids ever be uncomfortable for a second, and they’re too afraid of being embarrassed about their crying kids. Meanwhile putting a screen in front of them is just making everything worse long term
The reality is that your kid only demands an iPad because they know what an an iPad is. If you never crack the seal and show them a scren, even once, your kid will be briefly annoyed and then figure out ways to entertain themselves with the silverware.
(yes, I have 3 kids, I am speaking from experience)
Reminds me of when my toddler came back from an overnight at the grandparents house and started excitedly telling me about how you can put syrup and butter on pancakes. He had been just fine before that with plain pancakes, but wouldn't touch them afterward without syrup and butter. Thanks for that, dad.
Lol they will not 'entertain themselves' at that point. They will see you working on the computer, start smashing and mashing the buttons and annoying the ever living shit out of you because you have something they do not and it looks to be interesting. Yes you can deal with that in various ways, but they will have an idea what it is, even if you manage to suppress that curiosity through some form of discipline.
I'm not sure about your kid but if my kid sees something new, they will stop at absolutely nothing until they find out what it is. This is why it's good, for example, if a child is curious about something like guns to show them what it is in a supervised way rather than have them get a crowbar and break into your safe and find out the hard way and hurt themselves.
I envy your reality. In mine adults have to do work at random times during the day and holes in childcare exists. Something like an adult-only home office and childcare without holes is a pipe dream.
> We're pretty strict about office door closed == dad working
Interesting, I grew up in a house like that, and didn't see much of my dad for many years because of it. Something I didn't do with my own daughter, I always loved her coming into to distract me when I was working from home (pre-pandemic).
> This comment has started a very annoying and unproductive debate that’s basically just parenting hot take tropes and judgmental parents explaining why their way is best so I’m just editing it away.
We're here to discuss topics. If you are going to say that an iPad is a necessary tool for raising children, at least stand behind that point of view instead of removing it as soon as people disagree with you.
I'm a parent and I have no idea what you're talking about. Especially that thing about not being able to get away for a shower... That seems ridiculous like it's coming from another species from another planet! I mean kids are ultimately people. You care for and love them but they neither want nor need your attention 100% of the time, not even as an infant. The vibe I get is the parents who go through this are super nervous and anxious about their kids well being so they create this unnecessary and unrealistic demand on themselves that they can't meet. The sad irony is that when the relationship is so fraught the poor child really only sees you as a nervous wreck so of course they're attachment will itself become anxious. I really enjoy being a dad and my kids are great and every time I hear this characterization of it it kind of pisses me off. Sure maybe I'm just lucky, my personality is well suited to it or the kids are genetically suited to being good kids or whatever, but something tells me the vast majority of humans have a positive experience being a parent or else the species wouldn't continue to exist.
I am not at all a nervous wreck regarding my children but my toddler would definitely not ever let me have a shower in peace even if they were fully satisfied with attention and toys from another caregiver. It definitely depends on the child. Some are just hyper-social and at all times want to be in communication with absolutely everyone in the house, which was definitely not learned trait nor a response of something like no one paying attention to them.
When screens susbstitute for parental attention, kids develop separation anxiety. They start to develop attachment to screens as a soothing mechanism. It really boils down to parents spending more time with kids, paying attention to them.
Is there evidence parents are spending less time with their kids now than before screens?
When I was a kid from a young age I'd go explore the creek, spend all day hiking in the forest with a shotgun hunting squirrels/rabbits, or my parents would hand me some legos or something and leave me for an hour to build stuff. These stories weren't terribly uncommon. It was pretty normal for kids to be let out the house during the day and not come home until dinner. Parents weren't spending a lot of time with us.
Now it feels like if you don't spend time with your kid 24/7 some Karen will call CPS on your ass lickity split and some goon from the state will happily trump it up as neglect or some such. People even get cited for leaving their kid in the car for 5 minutes while they buy a pack of cigarettes.
Excuse my French... but no shit. It's all so obvious. Screen time. Social media. It's all bad for kids. Cake is bad for kids too, but a little now and then is fine. Same with screen time. However, you are being a bad parent if you're just dumping your child in front of a screen instead of spending time with them (with obvious exceptions like working parents who literally can't afford day care).
When I see a parent just shove a tablet in front of a little kid's face to shut them up, it makes me die a little inside. Of course technology can be used in a beneficial manner, but I can't help but think that it stunts their mental growth.
> A separate study by the same team in 2024 suggested that parents could help counteract some of the brain changes in young children caused by passive screen time by reading to them frequently and engaging more with them in person.
Presumably they haven't found the correlation yet.
We can have hundreds more of studies like these and we can endlessly talk about whether X problem is caused by screen usage. I do not think that this is helpful or relevant.
The facts are:
- These games/apps are designed for commercial purpose, specifically to get parents to buy things. To do that they are designed to be exploitative and addictive. Adults are very susceptible to this, children even more so.
- These games/apps are inherently anti-social (and in all ways in which they are social is being exploited by pedophiles, see e.g. roblox)
- These games/apps are used by parents to avoid interacting with their children and to outsource parenting (often so that they themselves can scroll on their phone)
- These games/apps are used by children instead of real world interactions with other children
If you take all of these facts together the idea that there aren't serious negative consequences is just laughable. Of course there will be and the only real question is whether they can be mitigated and what avenues exist to reverse the damage.
None of this is to says that no child should ever play a video game, but obviously there will be consequences if a large parts of a child's early life consists of staring at a screen.
From the linked press release (https://www.sgpc.gov.sg/detail?url=/media_releases/astar/pre...)
> Among children whose parents read to them frequently at age three, the link between infant screen time and altered brain development was significantly weakened.
It sounds a bit like the problem might not be so much "heavy screen time" as "heavy screen time, plus no alternative stimulation". Not defending heavy screen time at all, just thought it was an interesting tidbit.
Knowing little about the research, my prior would be that screen time is bad for kids and is also a proxy measure for the attentiveness of parents
I would tend to agree with that. I can even see in my own kids changes in behavior when external factors affect my own ability to be attentive to my kids.
Could also be that reading helps with parent bind somehow
I could see some sort of real world grounding helping reduce anxiety
There seems to be a lot of news around about digital devices paired with some age group leading to emotional or mental damage. TVs have been around 70 years. I'm not convinced devices are a relatively damaging factor in mental health development. Would I rather my child be using a phone or drinking lead-laced water or smoking? The evidence for chemical and biological consequences are more clear-cut and those took decades of measurable evidence. Studies, like these, seem more like trying to fit an assumed conclusion by plausibly random selection bias. Are these studies narrowing the field at all?
TV in the past didn't try to gaslight you into guilt or show all kinds of viral content and instant reactions. Except for news channels, most were slightly addictive at best. Even popular TV shows, you would have to wait for a week for the next episode and you couldn't binge. Screen time today is way different than even 20 years ago.
> Screen time today is way different than even 20 years ago.
Gee, it's almost like it's not about the screen itself at all.
I think I can hear your point through the unnecessary snark. You're implying the field is narrowed to a kind of social engineering, rather than the screen itself.
Why does the study say screen time when the effects are, ostensibly, not about the screen? Again, a conclusion/agenda in search of evidence necessarily makes biased assumptions. THIS study (as with others) mischaracterizes itself. Seems like a questionable study from the outset. This is a poor approach to analysis.
This was a commentary on the sort of person who takes the phrase "screen time" seriously—a much broader cultural and social issue than the study itself could reasonably evaluate.
> TVs have been around 70 years.
So what?
Heavy screen time before age two?! Maybe little kids' games should come with instructions for good parenting. Only half joking.
Heavy screen time before age two?! Maybe little kids' games should come with instructions for good parenting.
I've seen people giving their babies bottles of grape soda to suckle on the subway.
The chances that any of those kids end up the president of Harvard is zero.
To be fair, most people’s chances of becoming the president of Harvard is also zero.
See that the former president of Harvard was caught plagiarism and the former Sanford president resigned due to fraudulent data, the chances may be >0! Just need to lie, cheat, or commit fraud to get in!
This comment has started a very annoying and unproductive debate that’s basically just parenting hot take tropes and judgmental parents explaining why their way is best so I’m just editing it away.
> You’re at a restaurant and your toddler is trying to run away and generally make a mess out of everything
I don't think toddlers should be at most restaurants. I have a toddler and a 7 month old. I'm not even saying that for the sake of the other patrons. There's really nothing fun whatsoever about being at restaurant with your toddler. We don't even have bad outcomes, but you're sort of trapped in your seat, it's messy, it's expensive, and you're constantly keeping your toddler in line.
Restaurant food is really not so good as to overcome those issues.
Horses for courses. Our we let our 2yo run riot at restaurants while we enjoy our food. It was an adaptation for my wife, for sure. I love it and best I can tell other patrons and staff love how comfortable our daughter is in the environment.
The other patrons are being polite. Very few people love a toddler running riot while they're eating out
I suppose that would depend on the restaurant / patron.
For example, in Texas there are loads of TexMex restaurants and Hispanic cultures actually embrace children as part of the environment vs Western European cultures (which I was raised in) which don’t so much.
As I said: horses for courses.
> Are you a parent?
Yes, I am. And my spouse and I managed to raise two kids under the age of two without giving them an iPad. Yeah, it meant we didn't go to restaurants as much and that the house wasn't as clean as it was before. It's all trade offs.
I'm not saying this to say I'm a better parent than you are, but you don't __need__ an iPad or to plop them in front of a tv. Claims otherwise are just excuse making.
I wholeheartedly agree. I raised 5 kids 1 to 1.5 years apart before there were iPads or iPhones. We went to restaurants with them regularly and they did fine. We had the occasional issue but not often. More often we would get compliments on how well behaved. This absolutely possible.
Parent of 3 here. It's not just possible. It's quite normal for young kids to be well behaved in public places without having an electronic baby sitter.
We're lucky these things didn't exist before the introduction of the iPad, otherwise parenting would have been completely impossible and there wouldn't be any humans
I'm a parent (age 7 and 5 now). We had a strict no screen policy before the age of two, which really meant the oldest saw very little until after the second was born. It isn't that hard to live a normal life without screen in the home. I think a big part of the problem nowadays is making sure home is for home stuff. Not just work, but all other non-home stuff (preparing taxes, discussing bills, online banking, online health insurance bullshit, and so on) has infiltrated our homes. I've found that reserving a block of time to tackle that stuff instead of trying to do it throughout the makes parenting more manageable without giving children a screen.
Both my kids really struggled at night for years, and I sypmpathize with the lack of sleep.
Oh woe is me! Sometimes your kid is going to cry. They’ll make a scene. Who cares that’s what children do. That doesn’t mean you throw an iPad in front of them so that they’ll shut up. I swear my fellow millennials are the worst parents because they won’t let their kids ever be uncomfortable for a second, and they’re too afraid of being embarrassed about their crying kids. Meanwhile putting a screen in front of them is just making everything worse long term
The reality is that your kid only demands an iPad because they know what an an iPad is. If you never crack the seal and show them a scren, even once, your kid will be briefly annoyed and then figure out ways to entertain themselves with the silverware.
(yes, I have 3 kids, I am speaking from experience)
Reminds me of when my toddler came back from an overnight at the grandparents house and started excitedly telling me about how you can put syrup and butter on pancakes. He had been just fine before that with plain pancakes, but wouldn't touch them afterward without syrup and butter. Thanks for that, dad.
Yes, it definitely takes unpleasant and forceful conversations with grandparents and relatives.
(I'm fine with butter, but syrup is 100% off limits. Use berries.)
Lol they will not 'entertain themselves' at that point. They will see you working on the computer, start smashing and mashing the buttons and annoying the ever living shit out of you because you have something they do not and it looks to be interesting. Yes you can deal with that in various ways, but they will have an idea what it is, even if you manage to suppress that curiosity through some form of discipline.
I'm not sure about your kid but if my kid sees something new, they will stop at absolutely nothing until they find out what it is. This is why it's good, for example, if a child is curious about something like guns to show them what it is in a supervised way rather than have them get a crowbar and break into your safe and find out the hard way and hurt themselves.
The OP was about eating at a restaurant.
Yes, to work at home you need a home office and childcare.
I envy your reality. In mine adults have to do work at random times during the day and holes in childcare exists. Something like an adult-only home office and childcare without holes is a pipe dream.
Yeah my wife takes care of our kids during work hours. We're pretty strict about office door closed == dad working.
> We're pretty strict about office door closed == dad working
Interesting, I grew up in a house like that, and didn't see much of my dad for many years because of it. Something I didn't do with my own daughter, I always loved her coming into to distract me when I was working from home (pre-pandemic).
I'm with the kids 7-9 (wakeup and breakfast) and 5:30 - 9 (dinner, play, bedtime). Plus weekends. It's fine.
Great to hear, I'm sure they appreciate that very much.
> This comment has started a very annoying and unproductive debate that’s basically just parenting hot take tropes and judgmental parents explaining why their way is best so I’m just editing it away.
We're here to discuss topics. If you are going to say that an iPad is a necessary tool for raising children, at least stand behind that point of view instead of removing it as soon as people disagree with you.
I'm a parent and I have no idea what you're talking about. Especially that thing about not being able to get away for a shower... That seems ridiculous like it's coming from another species from another planet! I mean kids are ultimately people. You care for and love them but they neither want nor need your attention 100% of the time, not even as an infant. The vibe I get is the parents who go through this are super nervous and anxious about their kids well being so they create this unnecessary and unrealistic demand on themselves that they can't meet. The sad irony is that when the relationship is so fraught the poor child really only sees you as a nervous wreck so of course they're attachment will itself become anxious. I really enjoy being a dad and my kids are great and every time I hear this characterization of it it kind of pisses me off. Sure maybe I'm just lucky, my personality is well suited to it or the kids are genetically suited to being good kids or whatever, but something tells me the vast majority of humans have a positive experience being a parent or else the species wouldn't continue to exist.
I am not at all a nervous wreck regarding my children but my toddler would definitely not ever let me have a shower in peace even if they were fully satisfied with attention and toys from another caregiver. It definitely depends on the child. Some are just hyper-social and at all times want to be in communication with absolutely everyone in the house, which was definitely not learned trait nor a response of something like no one paying attention to them.
This makes it sound as if it were impossible to raise a child before the advent of the iPad.
Nice edit. I'm not sure "don't put an ipad in front of your infant" qualifies as "unproductive" or a "hot take".
https://archive.is/Y1q1e
When screens susbstitute for parental attention, kids develop separation anxiety. They start to develop attachment to screens as a soothing mechanism. It really boils down to parents spending more time with kids, paying attention to them.
Is there evidence parents are spending less time with their kids now than before screens?
When I was a kid from a young age I'd go explore the creek, spend all day hiking in the forest with a shotgun hunting squirrels/rabbits, or my parents would hand me some legos or something and leave me for an hour to build stuff. These stories weren't terribly uncommon. It was pretty normal for kids to be let out the house during the day and not come home until dinner. Parents weren't spending a lot of time with us.
Now it feels like if you don't spend time with your kid 24/7 some Karen will call CPS on your ass lickity split and some goon from the state will happily trump it up as neglect or some such. People even get cited for leaving their kid in the car for 5 minutes while they buy a pack of cigarettes.
Excuse my French... but no shit. It's all so obvious. Screen time. Social media. It's all bad for kids. Cake is bad for kids too, but a little now and then is fine. Same with screen time. However, you are being a bad parent if you're just dumping your child in front of a screen instead of spending time with them (with obvious exceptions like working parents who literally can't afford day care).
When I see a parent just shove a tablet in front of a little kid's face to shut them up, it makes me die a little inside. Of course technology can be used in a beneficial manner, but I can't help but think that it stunts their mental growth.
Precisely. The article even states:
> A separate study by the same team in 2024 suggested that parents could help counteract some of the brain changes in young children caused by passive screen time by reading to them frequently and engaging more with them in person.
Presumably they haven't found the correlation yet.
i feel like everything we are doing is pointless if the next generation is going to be entirely invalid retards and no one cares
We can have hundreds more of studies like these and we can endlessly talk about whether X problem is caused by screen usage. I do not think that this is helpful or relevant.
The facts are:
- These games/apps are designed for commercial purpose, specifically to get parents to buy things. To do that they are designed to be exploitative and addictive. Adults are very susceptible to this, children even more so.
- These games/apps are inherently anti-social (and in all ways in which they are social is being exploited by pedophiles, see e.g. roblox)
- These games/apps are used by parents to avoid interacting with their children and to outsource parenting (often so that they themselves can scroll on their phone)
- These games/apps are used by children instead of real world interactions with other children
If you take all of these facts together the idea that there aren't serious negative consequences is just laughable. Of course there will be and the only real question is whether they can be mitigated and what avenues exist to reverse the damage.
None of this is to says that no child should ever play a video game, but obviously there will be consequences if a large parts of a child's early life consists of staring at a screen.