The title is misleading. This is not about child cognitive development, merely just some brain imaging. In short, the MRI method can not see the effects of screen time. This is of course a good thing but does mean nothing about cognitive development.
From the abstract of the article [1]:
We studied a [...] sample of young people [...] (ages 9–12 years) to investigate the relations between self-reported use of various digital screen media activity (SMA) and functional brain organization. [...] Of principal interest were two hypotheses: First, that functional brain organization (assessed through resting state functional connectivity MRI; rs-fcMRI) is related to digital screen engagement; and second, that children with higher rates of engagement will have functional brain organization profiles related to maladaptive functioning. Results did not support either of these predictions for SMA.
>Self-report estimates provided by participants were our predictor variables. Participants used a 7-point scale to estimate the amount of time they spent on each of a series of six digital activities on both “typical” weekday and weekend days;
I think “merely” brain images is a bit dismissive if by your own quote they’re using functional MRI and comparing the profiles to known maladaptive functioning. Or are you saying that fMRIs can’t possibly capture complex social behaviors?
Casual observation, always careful in the mind of the observer, is a piss poor substitute for scientific data collection. Are you, as we speak, conducting a double blind, properly controlled and sampled study of juvenile cognitive development and device exposure?
> Are you, as we speak, conducting a double blind, properly controlled and sampled study of juvenile cognitive development and device exposure
The study you are defending is not blinded, controlled, or randomly sampled. Use your brain for a second instead of reacting instinctively. Do you really think this oneoff paper was the result of a 10-year longitudinal study?
In fact, the hypothetical study you are describing would cost millions of dollars, never pass an IRB or be consented by parents.
There's a great deal of irony of this criticism coming from someone claiming to know better than this study while providing nothing to back up your dismissal.
I don't dismiss this study because I have children, and I'm not a moron who will dismiss a study based on anecdotes. I also don't blindly trust it, but it has far more weight than anecdotes about correlations.
What gets you in a spot of bother, I think, is reading what you think your interlocutor says, instead of reading what they actually say. I was, from the start, merely objecting to your amusingly cavalier use of the phrase "obviously not true". I never did claim I take the study in question as gospel, nor did I claim it's blinded, controlled, or randomly sampled, now did I?
Yes, it is reasonable, and, in the absence of more systematized knowledge gathering, is all there is. OTOH, it also creates a mass of conflicting, mostly wrong, and difficuly to improve within the same franework, beliefs about the world, because the experience of each person is limited, and often highly nonrepresentative in non-obvious ways.
Which is the problem addressed by the development of the scientific method.
I forgot where I read that but I remember a neuroscientist studying the impact of TV on learning abilities saying that it is much better to leave a child in a silent room with no stimulation and a dumb toy than putting them in front of a TV program with a lot of cuts and making loud noises. It interrupts their thought process every time there is an abrupt visual or audio change and the baby thinking is reset.
Science reporting does itself a massive disservice publishing headlines like this, especially when the real takeaway is just "MRIs cannot see the damage done to children's brains with screens". Even other children know that the "ipad kids" are different and damaged in some way, my young cousin and his friends call them bots.
I can completely believe that whatever damage is being done to children by screens does not show up on an MRI scan. Having never even seen one in person, I have no assumptions about what that would look like, if the damage even manifested physically. What is plainly obvious and would take much more than a self-reported survey to disabuse me of, is the idea that excessive electronic usage screws up kids' brains, making them highly prone to anti-social behavior and likely some form of screentime addiction.
Why is it "plainly obvious"? You criticize a self reported study, but offer up a self reported second hand anecdotal claim as the only alternative, without even stopping for a moment to consider other potential reasons, such as e.g. whether the causal link may go the other direction, or whether kids who get to have more screen time have less involved parents.
I don't know whether this study is right. What I do know is that my observation of the people who insist it is not in this thread suggests I can't trust their reasoning about what they claim to have observed, because it fairly consistently involves illogical leaps and unsuported assumptions of causality.
The AAP, until recently, recommended no screentime before age 2. They dropped that recommendations due to lack of strong evidence. That said, if your child has a speech delay, their SLP's first question will be about screentime.
I feel it’s obvious in some respect that if “screen time” means TikTok or YouTube binging then there’s probably something more developmentally useful you could be doing.
That screen time might lead to a maladaptive brain as evidence by MRI, strikes me as an extreme effect. I’d be curious to know what else this experimental design had been applied to in the past and whether it’s at all commensurate with this purpose.
I noticed a very different result, when I consciously watched some selected videos together with my boy vs. setting him loose with a smartphone in his hand.
Even within the realm of (say) YouTube, I'd expect a difference between "Khan Academy math lesson" and "Funniest Kicks In the Gonads Compilation".
I agree with others here (and elsewhere) that "screen time" is way too coarse-grained to be useful. It's as if people back in the '60s were doing research on "paper time", lumping looking at porn magazines or pop star fan magazines together with reading physics textbooks.
Dubious at best. If one has children they notice quite visibly that screen time makes their children more agitated during the days they have screen time. And screen time is as addictive to children as it is to adults, and we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.
If the OP genuinely observed such changes in behavior, then that's different than ascribing a direct cause to screen time. Perhaps some children respond differently. Perhaps other factors play out by means of screen time. Perhaps what their kids are doing on their phones is different (we shouldn't forget the affect of the content on the screen). Who knows, and from a parenting point of view, it may not matter all that much when deciding what to do. If reducing screen time improves symptoms, then that's a good start, at least.
> There is a danger in overgeneralization from anecdotal evidence.
There is, and there is likewise the danger of overgeneralizing from scientific studies. That is, even if the study has been conducted without error, we must correctly understand what the measurements used were, how they relate to observable phenomena, and what they entail. A study may make a very modest claim about something really quite specific, but it is easy to misinterpret the actual results and overinfer what they entail.
Ergo, it may very well be the case that the OP has observed increased agitation with screen time, and this need not contradict the study, and vice versa.
But we must always remember that what is observed takes precedence. If you observe a genuine correlation between screen time and misbehavior personally, it makes more sense to go with what you have observed rather than the study. To quote Chico Marx facetiously, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?".
When science doesn't match your personal observations, that doesn't make the science wrong. It also doesn't make your personal observations wrong - it usually (in my experience) means that you're measuring/observing different things (assuming you're reasonably intelligent, which I am doing). In this case, "cognitive development and well being" are complex concepts that probably do not map exactly (or maybe even grossly) between their definitions in the study and their experiential meanings in your head.
My personal observation is that "screen time" is not the problem, but lack of interaction _is_ - letting the kids be in front of a screen for two hours doesn't cause a problem, but letting that be an excuse not to spend time with them or interact with them (which is when it usually ends up happening in large quantities) does. Essentially - you need to control the other variables to understand what's really going on; excessive screen time is generally a symptom and not a cause.
And of course, talking about all of this as if 'screen time' is all the same is _insane_. Anyone that thinks watching youtubers screech at each other for hours is equivalent (for the purposes of mental development) to watching an adapted Broadway musical has not put any thought into the topic, and that's entirely setting aside the topic of interactive vs passive entertainment being lumped together..
But hopefully the strategy of "just let the kids blend it all together and hope it washes out in the statistics" is a good enough method -.-
It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious.
Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite.
Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'
If you'd like to analyze their approaches to call the study 'dubious', I won't argue with you (it is; they are not strong ones). But making that assertion solely on the position that your personal observations of your own children disagree puts you in the same category as my wife's friend that rejects vaccines because her mom took one and still got covid. That's not how individual observations interact with science.
When it comes to social science and studies involving self reporting I don't give it the same weight as I would to a study where all the variables are quantifiable and controlled
And in this case the quantifiable, non-self-reported part is the MRI brain scans they're doing, but what does that data indicate? I'm too ignorant of neuroscience to know. Are all changes in behavior and cognition detectable through an MRI scan? Maybe the average kid who spends 8 hours a day playing video games finds it nearly impossible to read a single page of a Harry Potter book without getting distracted, while a kid with 2 average hours of screen time has no problem with it, yet the difference maybe isn't reflected in an MRI scan? Did they perform these same scans on some Amish kids as a control?
Point being sometimes studies like this are hard to swallow when their conclusions go against so much anecdotal observation, particularly when the methodology leaves room for all kinds of other interpretations
Oh I have no problem with doubting the study (I definitely doubt its conclusions myself, since I don't think "screen time" is a meaningfully monolithic concept to study in the first place, without even getting into the details of the methodology). But there are good ways to doubt and bad ways, and "this study is junk because my kids misbehave more when they watch TV" is far on the wrong end.
Interesting the concept if "misbehaving when watching tv". I have a clear memory that I would get a mild headache and feel bored if I watched too much tv, and when I look at my children I notice they are watching too much tv by how "active" their body becomes while in front of the tv, that's the signal boredom is kicking in and a good time to turn it off. Usually prevent things going worse.
The time it goes bad is when I need the full day for, as an example, pack for a long trip. In that case tv is a necessity, but the consequences are terrible
The difference is that the science will have tightly defined terms for "cognitive development" and "well being" that is different than what a parent is measuring when they're looking at agitation, misbehavior, impulsiveness... etc.
My wife and I have seen the same thing with our child. More agitation, more self-satisfying behavior ("forgetting" to do as told and playing instead), more temper tantrums. Kiddo still gets screen time, but it's limited.
There's a much bigger correlation with bad behavior, mental "fuzziness," and impulsiveness to diet, than to screen time. Too much processed food, food with preservatives, and food with refined wheat flour... yikes. Night and day difference in some cases. (Turns out a lot of kids have a "wheat allergy" but it isn't just that.)
No this study is actually garbage. What it considers screen time is way too broad to be useful.
People aren't worried about screens in general, but social media in particular as well as other smartphone applications that are engineered to keep you engaged.
I don't disagree with you a bit! Science should be doubted in the correct ways, and for appropriate reasons, that's one of the main things I come to HN comments for. My issue with the OP was with his reasons - anecdotes about your children and personal opinions about the world might _trigger_ doubts, but they aren't good reasons to base those doubts on.
I can cite plenty of anecdotal evidence of what seems to be addiction. Major temper tantrums and hyperventilating when screens are taken away. Not to mention, zoning out for an hour or two watching unboxing videos or whatever on YouTube.
> I can cite plenty of anecdotal evidence of what seems to be addiction. Major temper tantrums and hyperventilating when screens are taken away.
But might kids who never had access to screens react similarly if you took away their prized Legos, comic books, bike, art supplies, or other immersive toy? It doesn't seem like dramatic temper tantrums over losing a prized activity are new,and neither do obsessions over objects or activities.
To me, growing up, my computer was the tool I used to access almost all of my interests and much of my social contact. Taking away my screen time would've been the equivalent of locking me in my room without any toys or access to any social contact. I find it bizarre that people think tantrums if they take away a basic tool is evidence of anything.
That does of course not mean that it's not sometimes an indication that some kids are relying on it too much, but the level of reasoning on this subject seems to regularly be mired in hyperbole.
Just throwing in to back you up: My child becomes unresponsive to most inputs that would ordinarily motivate him (e.g. "Would you like a cookie?") after a certain amount of screentime and becomes pronouncedly agitated should you try to limit screen time (e.g. "It's time to go to school in five minutes. You have to pause the show by then." Cue literal wailing and crying.) When screen time is limited to brief periods (< ~90 minutes) these problems do not manifest.
>> Being addicted to an activity doesn't necessarily hurt your cognitive development.
This kind of minimizing is a standard part of how addicts rationalize their behavior to themselves.
Oftentimes it is not directly the addictive behavior that is the major problem. Instead the primary problem for many addicts winds up being all of the things that they ARE NOT doing while they engage in their addiction.
But screen time involves an extremely diverse set of activities, you aren't addicted to a single thing you are just addicted to efficiency. Not sure why that would necessarily be bad, efficiency helps you get the information you need or want faster.
Another activity that is efficient is driving a car instead of walking. Do you ban cars for your kid and force it to walk for an hour to school? If not, why do you think one kind of efficiency is fine but not the other? Surely walking to school would be way more positive on your child than banning screens? I'm sure your kid would scream and complain if you forced the kid to walk everywhere, because the kid knows there is an easier way and that will limit the activities and experiences the kid can partake in. If you live in a non-car centric area just think public transit instead of cars, banning efficiency works the same.
“screen time” is such a nonsense phrase. Sure make sure your kid gets physical exercise but to primarily define and rate the value of an experience a child is having primarily based on whether it is on a screen or not is hilariously myopic especially among people that supposedly claim to have a progressive view of technology.
The question is WHAT is the child doing on that screen? Are they blobbing out or are they playing a video game that stimulates and challenges their brain (a strategy game, even action games) or socializing with friends in a video game learning how to conflict manage and operate as an effective social group? (minecraft is full of this).
I mean we ruined the world for kids, I can’t blame them for looking to virtual worlds to transcend the hellhole we left them even a little bit. Sure, the kids should just “go outside” and play in the… development full of huge pickups that aren’t even designed to able to see children (they kind of look custom designed to run over children actually), with no public spaces to explore and play in, no sidewalks leading from the development to anywhere else and endless strip malls, parking lots and cars as far as the eye can see…
Their brain is going to be healthier engaging with good video games than that landscape.
Does this factor in the impact of constant instant-gratification of whatever is done on that screen?
Because (subjectively) I can see how children with lots of screen-time have a harder time with activities which do not lead to immediate dopamine release, like reading, listening to a story, drawing, etc., while children with low/no screen-time can derive satisfaction already from the process of doing something.
--
Edit: I'd say none of this impacts "brain function or well-being" directly, as both CAN do tasks without instant gratification, it's just that children with lots of screen-time perceive them vastly different from my personal observation.
This may be the major distinction that is missing. We don't talk about what someone is doing on the screen. Some activities are better than others. Me play Path of Exile -- not great. Reading HN -- potentially not a time sink. Watching a documentary on deadly snakes -- mild time waster. Reading Terry Pratchett for 20x time -- endless joy.
edit: I guess my real point is that it is all in the eye of the beholder. I know my parents hated me playing games.
Children and everyone else … I can’t watch a movie anymore without either reading something or playing chess at the same time just to up the frequency of those hits.
Indeed. I guess measurement of your "brain function or well-being" might not show any difference, but the way you perceive those activities might have changed completely.
I have a similar observation regarding Movies. Funny how this can be improved by watching a movie in cinema, a purpose of cinema which silently grows while the original purpose of "better audio/video experience" is fading...
there is James Cameron quote, something to the effect of "a movie ticket is a contract between you and the director that you're going to give this uninterrupted attention"
Brilliant.
When I buy I physical book, I make a contract between myself and author. But without the third party intermediary (in Cameron’s case, the cinema) screen time sneaks in and invalidates my contractual obligations.
But why is that so bad? Movies retell the same story with the same beats over and over again. I think we should be more concerned about people who can focus on something repetitive for extended periods. What's wrong with them?
Maybe you should try expanding your cinematic repertoire, if that's the impression you have of movies?
I'm saying this genuinely, not to make a snide point or anything. There are some really good movies out there that aren't just "the same beats over and over again." If, say, you're only watching big studio blockbusters, try branching out into smaller dramas, that kind of thing.
"Beat for beat" might be a bit unfair but even then there are traditional structures such as "The Hero's Journey" that are commonly used by writer's both in and out of Hollywood.
That said, even if structure and a finite number of plots is true, there is still a wide variety of artistic potential from characterization to setting to art style.
I will say, however, that the older I get the more "familiar" things feel. Even when I'm watching non-blockbuster stuff. I'm pretty sure this is just the result of having watched more movies throughout my life. My standards are getting higher and my pattern recognition toolset is widening. And since I have dabbled in writing myself, I tend to recognize formulas when they are being applied ... even if the movie is not a cookie-cutter Hollywood factory-produced summer blockbuster.
I agree. It had serious flaws, and yet joyfully held my attention. Not because of the action, but because it had novelty. It wasn't a bland reshuffling of the same 12 approved characters in the 6 approved plots in the same 3 styles that most movies and shows seem to be permutations of.
A lot of rough edges can be forgiven for just a little bit of mad creativity.
When I had an addiction to social media, I could not enjoy 'slow' things. I also felt anxiety and depression. After detoxing I am again able to enjoy the 'slow' things, like taking time to learn and resisting instant gratification hits.
Watching a movie sometimes requires 'getting into it' before you can really appreciate it.
Most of our jobs are repetitive tasks. Even something like being a race car driver is repetitive and 'boring'. In order to be fast you have to practice the same track layout hundreds of times to find the optimal racing line and braking points. Without boring there is no glory.
We didn't go to the moon due to laziness. We don't build planes, trains, and skyscrapers due to laziness. We didn't invent vaccines or nuclear physics due to laziness. We don't write standards or encyclopedias or novels due to laziness.
I'd suggest most of our progress was actually made by grinding through boring tasks. Many (most?) lazy people do not drive much progress.
A movie is not just what story beats it contains. If that is all you consider a movie is, then I suppose you might as well just read the wiki summaries of every movie.
But I wouldn't dismiss an entire form of complex expression because of an inability or unwillingness to engage with it at its level.
A movie is the visuals, the acting, the sound, the camera movements/editing, etc and how it all comes together to essentially give you a 2d slice of a person's realized thoughts.
I love many movies. I have a huge collection. But there are also plenty of movies I will not bother giving my full attention because they're not worth it. If people struggle to give full attention to movies they actually find engaging and want to give their full attention, then that is an issue. If people feel they get more value from not giving a movie their full attention, that's a perfectly reasonable choice.
I feel this as well (which isn't to say it's true I suppose) about most content, but yes; especially modern movies. It seems like it's nearly all formulaic drivel made to satisfy some algorithm. Of course, it's also possible that's just me getting older - I can imagine some old man making a similar complaint. But I can't help but think there really is something going on.
I recently watched Willem Dafoe in "Inside" and while it's not really a cinematic experience that could be called pleasant, I was actually satisfied at the end of it because it actually felt creative.
Yeah, I think that's pretty much it. We now have way more content to choose from but the problem now is to be able to select what is worthwhile.
They call it attention economy and that's pretty much why. You have limited attention, if you use it on some random crap, you can't use it for something better (that you didn't notice or wasn't as easily accessible).
A friend of mine gets pissed off when I fall asleep in front of half the movies, he asks me to watch, but the reality is that those movies are bargain bin low quality comedies (or worse, documentaries) and its better use of my time to sleep than bother with it. It's actually one of my sleeping strategies, to empty my brain of thoughts, so...
I don't think there is a major problem with attention, neither in children or adults; it's just that it's a lot harder to sort through what is worth your attention and after some willpower is spent to choose something it doesn't get overthrown because of the psychology of commitment. But it is not worth paying attention, so people use whatever is around them to not completely waste time.
In my opinion inattentive children in classrooms has a lot more to do with teachers being bad and lack of physical activities than a problem with the kids. But teachers are politically untouchable nowadays and you can't ask them to actually be competitive or get fired. The pay is also progressive and equal regardless of actual performance, so you get terrible people who cannot keep kids' attention because they suck; but then we blame the kids. Sure.
I don't think this is a problem with you, rather with the content. I'm more likely to not do anything else when I rewatch a movie I like then when I watch a new tv show that's average.
Some shows are just super slow or full of unnecessary stuff and they try to sell those portions as "art"
Cognitive development falls under the umbrella of psychology, a failed science.
It's impossible to reliably and exhaustively measure development, and like real science, disproving an effect is orders of magnitude more difficult than finding an effect.
Well, screen time I imagine would also not induce diabetes or clogged arteries in children 9-12. but it will few decades down the line if they don't ingrain good habits because of that screen time.
Same with this, if MRI does not detect brain "hardware" damage, that does not mean there are no software damage done to kids with excessive screen time at young age.
I had a son 2 months ago. One of my biggest concerns is how to protect him from excessive screen time and social networks until he grows up enough (~14 years at least). I plan to do a lot of nature going (with some backyard astronomy and biology if that piques his interest) and sports, active travel.. We'll see how it goes
There is a straightforward solution if you have enough time to commit. Your kids will likely prefer to play with you than sit on the screen every time.
I think the bigger problem is that “we” just don’t “have the time” and fighting the default time sinks when kids are left to their on devises is an uphill battle.
Screen time is pretty broad. A toddler watching 10 min of Ms. Rachel probably isn't the same as a teenager watching 10 min of TikTok.
We've had some single digit aged children in our care that had been exposed to GTA, scary movies, etc. Those things absolutely DID have an effect on them.
Not all screen time is equal. Though, all screen time may have negative consequences.
My third grade son spends time daily on typing and Khan Academy (iMac). He spends an additional few minutes reading about sports (public school issued iPad). His video game exposure is quite limited. Though I have a PS5, he rarely plays it (once per week, perhaps – of course Madden and MLB The Show).
He spends a lot of time either at school or playing organized club sports. Shorter and colder winter days will have a negative impact on outdoor activities, so looking at fields with lights or indoor sports.
His cognitive functions are quite good. I'd say the iPad is definitely the lowest quality computer interaction he gets.
The real setback for his cohort was Covid. Those who spent time on iPhones and iPads then (likley continuing on from their early childhood) appear to lag and continue to struggle. These kids are easy to pick out, and I sympathize with their struggle.
I have another young child now (<2), and again: no iPhones or iPads for him. I'll wait for the research to catch up.
It isn’t obvious to me why you think iPhones and iPads have retarded some of the cohort? Can you expand on the causality of it and what ages are you referring to ?
No there is causality when a group is hitting each other with sticks, pretending to be jedi knights, and the other is setting up a "fake" farm with some complex "economy" between the baker, the blacksmith, the tailor, etc.
There is causality when all the kid can draw involves violence with vague shapes, while others can draw complex sceneries.
Where I do agree is that at the end of the day, the screen is not really the issue, it's what you watch on it.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. I can see a pretty strong correlation between the parents who have the will to not simplify their lives by putting kids in front of the TV and parents who will do more than the average parent for their kids to be well-educated.
> I will never believe a study telling me that spending 2 hours watching star wars is better for a kid than going to build a fort in the forest.
The kids with screens already built forts and gained that, in this scenario it is the kids without screens that do the same mundane activity over and over while the kids with screens are experiencing new things. You learn the important parts about building forts or dams or tools very quickly, it isn't something you should be doing for years.
Who funded this research, or indirectly the institution/s behind the research. I wish this declaration was labelled under the heading for all research. I’m jaded though.
The claim (per title, likely not from the scientists themselves): No evidence screen time is negative for child cognitive development.
The study: Self reported screen time does not correlate to functional brain organization profiles related to maladaptive functioning as measured by MRI.
There is a lot more in the study, but unless one is already well versed in this field, it will take a great deal of time to parse and understand the data and the limitations of the methodology they used.
I think the press release is too strongly worded given what I've been able to understand of the study.
These are the sorts of "research" which severely undermines trust in research in general. Anyone who has children or who works with children knows that screen time adversely affects ability to focus, attention spans etc.
Research used to say cigarettes were healthy and having a cellphone glued to your head didn't have any adverse effects either.
"No evidence screen time is negative for child cognitive development?" Really?
> analysed the cognitive function of 9-12 year old children alongside their self-reported screen time use
> no evidence was found to show that screen time impacted their brain function or well-being
Oh, I'm sure screen-time lights up all sorts of areas of the brain. Stimulation is the point. The test passes because they redefined the problem itself. And if I'm reading the abstract correctly, the test only ran for 2 years.
How'd they measure well-being? Because every other day there's articles published about how miserable all the kids are and how corrosive social media has been for their mental health.
118 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 205 ms ] threadFrom the abstract of the article [1]:
We studied a [...] sample of young people [...] (ages 9–12 years) to investigate the relations between self-reported use of various digital screen media activity (SMA) and functional brain organization. [...] Of principal interest were two hypotheses: First, that functional brain organization (assessed through resting state functional connectivity MRI; rs-fcMRI) is related to digital screen engagement; and second, that children with higher rates of engagement will have functional brain organization profiles related to maladaptive functioning. Results did not support either of these predictions for SMA.
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001094522...
>Self-report estimates provided by participants were our predictor variables. Participants used a 7-point scale to estimate the amount of time they spent on each of a series of six digital activities on both “typical” weekday and weekend days;
Sounds like it was.
The study you are defending is not blinded, controlled, or randomly sampled. Use your brain for a second instead of reacting instinctively. Do you really think this oneoff paper was the result of a 10-year longitudinal study?
In fact, the hypothetical study you are describing would cost millions of dollars, never pass an IRB or be consented by parents.
Please try to update your priors.
Which is the problem addressed by the development of the scientific method.
I don't know whether this study is right. What I do know is that my observation of the people who insist it is not in this thread suggests I can't trust their reasoning about what they claim to have observed, because it fairly consistently involves illogical leaps and unsuported assumptions of causality.
That screen time might lead to a maladaptive brain as evidence by MRI, strikes me as an extreme effect. I’d be curious to know what else this experimental design had been applied to in the past and whether it’s at all commensurate with this purpose.
I noticed a very different result, when I consciously watched some selected videos together with my boy vs. setting him loose with a smartphone in his hand.
I agree with others here (and elsewhere) that "screen time" is way too coarse-grained to be useful. It's as if people back in the '60s were doing research on "paper time", lumping looking at porn magazines or pop star fan magazines together with reading physics textbooks.
What you want to be true isn’t necessarily universal.
But if it affects enough of them then it's a problem worth looking into.
OP’s kid could have major depression for all we know, their anecdotes about their kids being extrapolated to all kids is absurd.
If the OP genuinely observed such changes in behavior, then that's different than ascribing a direct cause to screen time. Perhaps some children respond differently. Perhaps other factors play out by means of screen time. Perhaps what their kids are doing on their phones is different (we shouldn't forget the affect of the content on the screen). Who knows, and from a parenting point of view, it may not matter all that much when deciding what to do. If reducing screen time improves symptoms, then that's a good start, at least.
I have children and the relationship is much more complicated with them. There is a danger in overgeneralization from anecdotal evidence.
> we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.
Strange line to use dismissing research into that exact topic.
There is, and there is likewise the danger of overgeneralizing from scientific studies. That is, even if the study has been conducted without error, we must correctly understand what the measurements used were, how they relate to observable phenomena, and what they entail. A study may make a very modest claim about something really quite specific, but it is easy to misinterpret the actual results and overinfer what they entail.
Ergo, it may very well be the case that the OP has observed increased agitation with screen time, and this need not contradict the study, and vice versa.
But we must always remember that what is observed takes precedence. If you observe a genuine correlation between screen time and misbehavior personally, it makes more sense to go with what you have observed rather than the study. To quote Chico Marx facetiously, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?".
My personal observation is that "screen time" is not the problem, but lack of interaction _is_ - letting the kids be in front of a screen for two hours doesn't cause a problem, but letting that be an excuse not to spend time with them or interact with them (which is when it usually ends up happening in large quantities) does. Essentially - you need to control the other variables to understand what's really going on; excessive screen time is generally a symptom and not a cause.
But hopefully the strategy of "just let the kids blend it all together and hope it washes out in the statistics" is a good enough method -.-
It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious.
Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite.
Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'
Can we? On what evidence?
The "no evidence refrain" happens because people keep advancing claims without even trying to back them up.
And in this case the quantifiable, non-self-reported part is the MRI brain scans they're doing, but what does that data indicate? I'm too ignorant of neuroscience to know. Are all changes in behavior and cognition detectable through an MRI scan? Maybe the average kid who spends 8 hours a day playing video games finds it nearly impossible to read a single page of a Harry Potter book without getting distracted, while a kid with 2 average hours of screen time has no problem with it, yet the difference maybe isn't reflected in an MRI scan? Did they perform these same scans on some Amish kids as a control?
Point being sometimes studies like this are hard to swallow when their conclusions go against so much anecdotal observation, particularly when the methodology leaves room for all kinds of other interpretations
The time it goes bad is when I need the full day for, as an example, pack for a long trip. In that case tv is a necessity, but the consequences are terrible
My wife and I have seen the same thing with our child. More agitation, more self-satisfying behavior ("forgetting" to do as told and playing instead), more temper tantrums. Kiddo still gets screen time, but it's limited.
There's a much bigger correlation with bad behavior, mental "fuzziness," and impulsiveness to diet, than to screen time. Too much processed food, food with preservatives, and food with refined wheat flour... yikes. Night and day difference in some cases. (Turns out a lot of kids have a "wheat allergy" but it isn't just that.)
People aren't worried about screens in general, but social media in particular as well as other smartphone applications that are engineered to keep you engaged.
See Johnathan Haidt's literature review here for what an actually critical reading of the literature would lead you to reasonably conclude: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill...
But might kids who never had access to screens react similarly if you took away their prized Legos, comic books, bike, art supplies, or other immersive toy? It doesn't seem like dramatic temper tantrums over losing a prized activity are new,and neither do obsessions over objects or activities.
That does of course not mean that it's not sometimes an indication that some kids are relying on it too much, but the level of reasoning on this subject seems to regularly be mired in hyperbole.
That is negative for the parents state of mind, not the child's cognitive development.
> And screen time is as addictive to children
Being addicted to an activity doesn't necessarily hurt your cognitive development.
This kind of minimizing is a standard part of how addicts rationalize their behavior to themselves.
Oftentimes it is not directly the addictive behavior that is the major problem. Instead the primary problem for many addicts winds up being all of the things that they ARE NOT doing while they engage in their addiction.
Another activity that is efficient is driving a car instead of walking. Do you ban cars for your kid and force it to walk for an hour to school? If not, why do you think one kind of efficiency is fine but not the other? Surely walking to school would be way more positive on your child than banning screens? I'm sure your kid would scream and complain if you forced the kid to walk everywhere, because the kid knows there is an easier way and that will limit the activities and experiences the kid can partake in. If you live in a non-car centric area just think public transit instead of cars, banning efficiency works the same.
Screens are poison.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/
The question is WHAT is the child doing on that screen? Are they blobbing out or are they playing a video game that stimulates and challenges their brain (a strategy game, even action games) or socializing with friends in a video game learning how to conflict manage and operate as an effective social group? (minecraft is full of this).
I mean we ruined the world for kids, I can’t blame them for looking to virtual worlds to transcend the hellhole we left them even a little bit. Sure, the kids should just “go outside” and play in the… development full of huge pickups that aren’t even designed to able to see children (they kind of look custom designed to run over children actually), with no public spaces to explore and play in, no sidewalks leading from the development to anywhere else and endless strip malls, parking lots and cars as far as the eye can see…
Their brain is going to be healthier engaging with good video games than that landscape.
Because (subjectively) I can see how children with lots of screen-time have a harder time with activities which do not lead to immediate dopamine release, like reading, listening to a story, drawing, etc., while children with low/no screen-time can derive satisfaction already from the process of doing something.
--
Edit: I'd say none of this impacts "brain function or well-being" directly, as both CAN do tasks without instant gratification, it's just that children with lots of screen-time perceive them vastly different from my personal observation.
edit: I guess my real point is that it is all in the eye of the beholder. I know my parents hated me playing games.
I have a similar observation regarding Movies. Funny how this can be improved by watching a movie in cinema, a purpose of cinema which silently grows while the original purpose of "better audio/video experience" is fading...
I'm saying this genuinely, not to make a snide point or anything. There are some really good movies out there that aren't just "the same beats over and over again." If, say, you're only watching big studio blockbusters, try branching out into smaller dramas, that kind of thing.
"Beat for beat" might be a bit unfair but even then there are traditional structures such as "The Hero's Journey" that are commonly used by writer's both in and out of Hollywood.
That said, even if structure and a finite number of plots is true, there is still a wide variety of artistic potential from characterization to setting to art style.
I will say, however, that the older I get the more "familiar" things feel. Even when I'm watching non-blockbuster stuff. I'm pretty sure this is just the result of having watched more movies throughout my life. My standards are getting higher and my pattern recognition toolset is widening. And since I have dabbled in writing myself, I tend to recognize formulas when they are being applied ... even if the movie is not a cookie-cutter Hollywood factory-produced summer blockbuster.
Hardcore Henry
Frenetic, insane, indulgent, madness. Loved it. Can stand most blockbusters, can't stand most dramas.
A lot of rough edges can be forgiven for just a little bit of mad creativity.
When I had an addiction to social media, I could not enjoy 'slow' things. I also felt anxiety and depression. After detoxing I am again able to enjoy the 'slow' things, like taking time to learn and resisting instant gratification hits.
Watching a movie sometimes requires 'getting into it' before you can really appreciate it.
Most of our jobs are repetitive tasks. Even something like being a race car driver is repetitive and 'boring'. In order to be fast you have to practice the same track layout hundreds of times to find the optimal racing line and braking points. Without boring there is no glory.
I'd suggest most of our progress was actually made by grinding through boring tasks. Many (most?) lazy people do not drive much progress.
But I wouldn't dismiss an entire form of complex expression because of an inability or unwillingness to engage with it at its level.
A movie is the visuals, the acting, the sound, the camera movements/editing, etc and how it all comes together to essentially give you a 2d slice of a person's realized thoughts.
- watching a move is screen time
- movies aren’t as captivating anymore
Im of the opinion that the quality of content is hot garbage on a good day and actual entertainment is rare now.
I recently watched Willem Dafoe in "Inside" and while it's not really a cinematic experience that could be called pleasant, I was actually satisfied at the end of it because it actually felt creative.
A friend of mine gets pissed off when I fall asleep in front of half the movies, he asks me to watch, but the reality is that those movies are bargain bin low quality comedies (or worse, documentaries) and its better use of my time to sleep than bother with it. It's actually one of my sleeping strategies, to empty my brain of thoughts, so...
I don't think there is a major problem with attention, neither in children or adults; it's just that it's a lot harder to sort through what is worth your attention and after some willpower is spent to choose something it doesn't get overthrown because of the psychology of commitment. But it is not worth paying attention, so people use whatever is around them to not completely waste time.
In my opinion inattentive children in classrooms has a lot more to do with teachers being bad and lack of physical activities than a problem with the kids. But teachers are politically untouchable nowadays and you can't ask them to actually be competitive or get fired. The pay is also progressive and equal regardless of actual performance, so you get terrible people who cannot keep kids' attention because they suck; but then we blame the kids. Sure.
Some shows are just super slow or full of unnecessary stuff and they try to sell those portions as "art"
It's impossible to reliably and exhaustively measure development, and like real science, disproving an effect is orders of magnitude more difficult than finding an effect.
Kid watches people opening boxes for shock factor. No.
Its time to stop pretending these are the same. The old guard cannot concede that Video Games might be different from TV Screen Time.
Same with this, if MRI does not detect brain "hardware" damage, that does not mean there are no software damage done to kids with excessive screen time at young age.
I had a son 2 months ago. One of my biggest concerns is how to protect him from excessive screen time and social networks until he grows up enough (~14 years at least). I plan to do a lot of nature going (with some backyard astronomy and biology if that piques his interest) and sports, active travel.. We'll see how it goes
I think the bigger problem is that “we” just don’t “have the time” and fighting the default time sinks when kids are left to their on devises is an uphill battle.
We've had some single digit aged children in our care that had been exposed to GTA, scary movies, etc. Those things absolutely DID have an effect on them.
My third grade son spends time daily on typing and Khan Academy (iMac). He spends an additional few minutes reading about sports (public school issued iPad). His video game exposure is quite limited. Though I have a PS5, he rarely plays it (once per week, perhaps – of course Madden and MLB The Show).
He spends a lot of time either at school or playing organized club sports. Shorter and colder winter days will have a negative impact on outdoor activities, so looking at fields with lights or indoor sports.
His cognitive functions are quite good. I'd say the iPad is definitely the lowest quality computer interaction he gets.
The real setback for his cohort was Covid. Those who spent time on iPhones and iPads then (likley continuing on from their early childhood) appear to lag and continue to struggle. These kids are easy to pick out, and I sympathize with their struggle.
I have another young child now (<2), and again: no iPhones or iPads for him. I'll wait for the research to catch up.
I’ll add: it’s especially notable in ability to focus and communicate. This is my take knowing and coaching many of these kids in youth sports.
The differences between these 2 groups are enormous in terms of their play, their attention during lessons, their overall academic achievements.
I will never believe a study telling me that spending 2 hours watching star wars is better for a kid than going to build a fort in the forest.
One possible reason why that logic might not hold might e.g. simply be that restrictions on screen time might correlate with more involved parents.
There is causality when all the kid can draw involves violence with vague shapes, while others can draw complex sceneries.
Where I do agree is that at the end of the day, the screen is not really the issue, it's what you watch on it.
Without anything else all you have is correlation.
There is no logically sound basis for your argument.
It's staggering to me how many arguments in this thread are devoid of proper application of reasoning.
The kids with screens already built forts and gained that, in this scenario it is the kids without screens that do the same mundane activity over and over while the kids with screens are experiencing new things. You learn the important parts about building forts or dams or tools very quickly, it isn't something you should be doing for years.
The study: Self reported screen time does not correlate to functional brain organization profiles related to maladaptive functioning as measured by MRI.
There is a lot more in the study, but unless one is already well versed in this field, it will take a great deal of time to parse and understand the data and the limitations of the methodology they used.
I think the press release is too strongly worded given what I've been able to understand of the study.
"No evidence screen time is negative for child cognitive development?" Really?
> analysed the cognitive function of 9-12 year old children alongside their self-reported screen time use
> no evidence was found to show that screen time impacted their brain function or well-being
Oh, I'm sure screen-time lights up all sorts of areas of the brain. Stimulation is the point. The test passes because they redefined the problem itself. And if I'm reading the abstract correctly, the test only ran for 2 years.
How'd they measure well-being? Because every other day there's articles published about how miserable all the kids are and how corrosive social media has been for their mental health.