Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Science

TV, ADHD and Doing Useful Things 104

Posted by Hemos from the well-duh dept.
WebGangsta writes "USAToday (and others) are reporting that too much TV, at an early age, can cause ADHD in children. They say that there should be no TV watching for children under 2. Every added hour of watching TV increased a child's odds of having attention problems by about 10%. Kids watching about three hours a day were 30% more likely to have attention trouble than those viewing no TV. The researchers accounted for many factors beside television that might predict problems concentrating, but the TV-attention link remained. I imagine that in 10 years we'll be seeing studies about how too much Internet/computer/video game use will also result in ADHD. See PEDIATRICS magazine for more information."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TV, ADHD and Doing Useful Things More

TV, ADHD and Doing Useful Things

Comments Filter:

  • Huh? (Score:1, Funny)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 )
    Uh, what?

  • TV==bad, Computer==good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by illuminatedwax ( 537131 ) <stdrange@nOsPAm.alumni.uchicago.edu> on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:00AM (#8769187) Journal
    Say what you want about TV causing ADHD - its fast switching topics are designed for short attention span, and as such will cause children to adapt to its style, causing inability to focus. However, video games (for children, especially learning games) demand focus from children and are probably beneficial in the same way that mobiles and toys and other baby things are. Having a computer will also get them used to dealing with technology, something which nowadays is vital. I remember I had a Commodore 64 when I was 5 and would just love to sit there and program on it and play video games.

    The difference really is that television is aimed at consumers, and consumers are really at heart people with ADHD with lots of money to spend. Video games on the other hand are an involved activity, no more dangerous than solving the Junior Jumble or pushing blocks through holes - provided that you give the children children's software. Don't let your kid end up like this [penny-arcade.com].

    --Stephen


    • I think a computer could be as bad, if the child already is fidgeting from the TV. Between portal sites, google search results, and suprising animal porn, a kid would just get lost trying out all sorts of links, etc.

      The great thing about a Commodore 64 is that the games are great for kids: sprite graphics, relatively simple premises, etc. I'd say the Atari 2600 fits in this category, too. Some of the modern PC games for kids are just as full of random detail as TV, which is also distracting (not all, so
    • I have yet to see a two year old (or less) baby play a videogame.
    • I have ADD (not the H, note), and I can say that there are things you CAN focus on, and things you CAN'T.

      Anything extremely interesting gets a big focus. I can play starcraft for like 6 hours non-stop, giving it my undivided attention. Reading a book for homework (when I was in school) was when my mind started 'changing channels.'
      • Anything extremely interesting gets a big focus. I can play starcraft for like 6 hours non-stop, giving it my undivided attention. Reading a book for homework (when I was in school) was when my mind started 'changing channels.'

        I don't have ADD, or ADHD, but that is true for me as well...isn't it just the fact that Starcraft is interesting, and homework is inherrantly dull (as you have to follow the path set by the tutor)?
        • Minor difference and a test. Can you pay attention to the homework even if unpleasant?? Then you do not have AD(H)D. If a stripper walked into the room while you were playing starcraft... would you notice... You do not have AD(H)D.
    • Indeed, it is the content of the TV, rather then Tv itself which causes the attention to switch off. Either the subject is only interesting for 1 or 2 mins, or the 'plot' is such that the storyline can only be followed for such a shot time before a)the writers attention breaks down, and the story wanders away, or b)the plot is interrupted by a commercial break. When TV was more sedate, and less 'buy this' oriented, the content would be more likely to bore you stiff- but ADD; ADHD; or whatever hadn't become
    • Have you ever sat and watched a two-year-old play on website games designed for kids?

      Check out noggin.com or nickjr.com, or even pbskids.org, and check out their games.

      My two-year-old stays with one game for typically about 10 minutes. I'm still unsure if it's good or bad.

      He doesn't run to turn on the TV in the morning- he runs to sit down at the computer. On the other hand, when he does watch TV, we make sure it's commercial-free stuff, and even a lot of the commercial-TV kids shows, like "Blue's Clues"

  • Causal relationship? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:05AM (#8769250)
    The paper doesn't actually claim a causal relationship:

    "Early television exposure is associated with attentional problems at age 7. Efforts to limit television viewing in early childhood may be warranted, and additional research is needed." (my italics, from the abstract)

    Without any evidence of a causal pathway it could be that, eg the constantly changing images are appealing to children who eventually develop ADHD. There have also been studies showing that children watching television in preschool has a beneficial effect on their teenage school performance.

    Given conflicting advice, surely parents should follow the advice of their doctors or health board [racp.edu.au] and not jump on the first research bandwagon that rolls through town.

    • Re:Causal relationship? (Score:2, Informative)

      by br0ck ( 237309 )
      The Yahoo article cut off the entire bit about the limits of the study from the second page of the Reuters posting [reuters.com]:

      STUDY LIMITED

      The authors said the study had some limitations.

      The television viewing data came from the parents and may not be completely accurate. Also, there is no way to know whether the children already had attention problems early on that attracted them to TV viewing, though symptoms don't appear that early, it said.

      It was also possible the parents who allowed excessive TV viewing were

    • Re:Causal relationship? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fireduck ( 197000 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:40AM (#8769719)
      they address this exact issue in the text of the paper:
      Third, we cannot draw causal inferences from these associations. It could be that attentional problems lead to television viewing rather than vice versa. However, to mitigate this limitation, we ... focused on television viewing at 1 and 3 years of age, well before the age at which most experts believe that ADHD symptoms are manifest.32,39 It is also possible that there are characteristics associated with parents who allow their children to watch excessive amounts of television that accounts for the relationship between television viewing and attentional problems.

      Same paragraph goes on to talk about how some shows might be good for children, such as Sesame Street, and promote reading, etc.

      So, while the researchers can't claim that TV viewing causes ADHD, there is a very strong correlation between the two, and one that obviously deserves further study. Plopping a 1 year old down in front of a TV and having that entertain him for several hours every day just can't be all that good for him. There's just gotta be more constructively entertaining avenues available.

    • Re:Causal relationship? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe kids who have ADHD just like to watch more TV? Or perhaps the pharmaceutical companies realize that these kids are watching TV all the time because their parents never do anything with them, ignoring them. Then the child misbehaves to get some attention, and the parents are like 'fuck that, give him some pills' so they don't have to deal with it.

      Then the parents spend all of the child's inheritance on a bunch of drugs, which warp his brain and make him gun the family down with Dad's legally owned
    • Exactly. Not only for the reasons you give, but my initial reaction was to wonder if the type of parents given to plonking their very young offspring in front of a TV were perhaps also treating their children differently in other regards compared with those who were not. Also, would similar results have be obtained if the children were placed in a room of colourful posters for the same amount of time?

      This study is interesting, but it doesn't really tell us anything common sense doesn't already - we need t

    • Re:Causal relationship? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by awtbfb ( 586638 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @05:44PM (#8773523)
      Without any evidence of a causal pathway it could be that, eg the constantly changing images are appealing to children who eventually develop ADHD.

      Have you ever watched Blues Clues? It has got to be the slowest moving show on the planet (insert CSPAN joke here) but little kids adore it. There was a comment in the paper this morning that someone at Sesame Street questioned if there would be a difference for educational shows. Having watched some of these shows, I'd bet Blues Clues and other slow moving and psuedo-interactive ("You see a clue? Where?") shows may be different.
    • Good science almost never shows causalities, merely ridiculously strong correlations.

      100% of murderers have eaten food at some point in their lives. Every murderer ate before murdering. Clearly, food is a menace to the public good!

    • I'm a parent of a child who is mildly developmentally delayed. One other possibility that the report doesn't mention, but which I'd find far more likely, is that parents tend to use TV just to calm down a child with ADHD because otherwise it's the only way you could get them to sit still for a while.

    • Why can't clinicians ( especially mental health types ) seem to understand this? You see commercials that say 'Depression has been associated with chemical imbalances in the brain.' which go on to offer some drug as the solution to the chemical imbalances problem that they hope the viewer will assume are causing their depression. This is deceptive advertising when in fact A) brain chemical imbalances cause depression B) depression causes brain chemical imbalances or C) Both are caused by one or more othe
      • Next we can tell all of the diabetics that insulin is just a crutch for the weak. They should just get up off their lazy butts and deal with their problems.

        • Re:Diabetes (Score:2, Insightful)

          by A55M0NKEY ( 554964 )
          Let us consider diabetes. Diabetes was first discovered hundereds ( thousands? ) of years ago by 'doctors' that saw the body in terms of it's humors ( fluids ). One of the bodily fluids is urine, which they tasted and found to be sweet in diabetics. I believe the word diabetes derives from 'sweet urine' or 'sugar urine' or some similar etymology.
          So we will define diabetes as secreting excessive sugar via the kidneys. Diabetes has many associated symptoms including blindness, lack of energy, bladder infec

          • I think the really telling point for psychiatric drugs is that they will either reduce symptoms, do nothing, or worsen the symptoms. With continued use, their dose may have to be increased, decreased, or they may begin to have the opposite effect and need to be discontinued. This is from the medical literature.

            There are no established tests to determine what will happen or to determine if or when the effect may reverse. Meanwhile, sudden withdrawal can be a disaster.

            In other words, we know they do somet

    • It seems more likely that someone is predisposed to have a condition like ADD and excessive TV watching just enhances the rate at which it develops. This is just another example of blaming a product because Johnny can't learn as fast as the rest of the kids and we don't want him to feel stupid. We should all just ignore this until something more interesting comes along.
    • check out this previously recommended link [aappublications.org]

      I like what is currently the last post on that page, by one Paul K Brandon, Professor at the Psychololgy Dept, Minnesota State University, Mankato :

      There are many possible contaminating variables here besides the ones that Gallagher mentions. The data are based on retrospective self reports by the parents of the children whose behavior is in question. I see no indication of any systematic validation of the accuracy of these reports. It is quite possible that pa

  • Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:10AM (#8769313) Homepage
    I imagine that in 10 years we'll be seeing studies about how too much Internet/computer/video game use will also result in ADHD

    I don't think that's a fair extrapolation. If "the Internet" is going to cause ADHD, then I suppose "reading books" will too. Or "folding paper". Origami is creating a nation of obese ADHD'ers!

    Internet use is sometimes like TV - but it also involves reading, decision-making, and much more concentration. Maybe it'll lead to a generation of smart kids with balanced lives?
    • Maybe it'll lead to a generation of smart kids with balanced lives?

      Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, or something. Personally, I believe it will create a society of paranoid tin-foil helmet wearers with porn addictions. Critical thinking is a virtue disappointingly rare.

  • I tried to read it (Score:3, Funny)

    by scumdamn ( 82357 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:15AM (#8769386)
    But it got boring so I looked at my fingers for a while and forgot what I'd been doing in the first place. Then I saw some lint on the desk and cleaned it up for a few seconds...

    What were we talking about again?

  • Children only? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Strange Ranger ( 454494 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:19AM (#8769445)
    I'd like to see this study done on Adults.

    I don't know if it's more of a cause or effect, but anecdotal personal experience shows a trend that the more in tune with the TV an adult is (knows scheduling, can talk about specific episodes of all their favorite shows) the shorter and less rewarding a conversation with them is is likely to be.

    While on the other hand, the folks that I know who are very discriminating television watchers can hold an in depth conversation, stick to topic, and not get impatient.

    Sort of a chicken and egg question with adults. Do these anecdotal adults with a greater attention span enjoy TV less and so are much more discerning with that they watch? Or do they have a greater attention span because it hasn't been stunted by the flashing box?

    • Re:Children only? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by blamanj ( 253811 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @12:28PM (#8770227)
      I'd like to see this study done on Adults.

      That makes no sense. The reason this is significant is because the children are under age 3. That's when the brain is undergoing a significant development phase.

      It's long been understood that the brain is much more "plastic" in young children. It's one of the reasons that it's some much easier to learn an addition language as a child than as an adult.

      What this study is saying, is that there may be developmental effect when very young children are exposed to a lot of TV.
      • So because developing children are more significantly effected by [almost everything] it therefore makes no sense to see if adults are effected? There is no point in studying whether television negatively effects the attention span of adults??

        The brain is always adapting. Maybe I should've said "similar" study to appease the pickers of nits?

  • TV vs. Computers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by michaelredux ( 627547 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:19AM (#8769452)

    "You go to your TV when you want to turn your brain off.
    You go to your computer when you want to turn your brain on.
    Those are not the same."

    -- Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple

  • Context, please. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JoeD ( 12073 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:27AM (#8769548) Homepage
    Without knowing what the base rate is ("How likely is a 2 year old to develop ADHD in the future?"), it's impossible to do any sort of real risk assesment on "your kid will be 30% more likely to develop ADHD if they watch 3 hours of TV a day".

    In the fearfest that's going to follow this, that figure will probably be conflated in the public mind to "you child has a 30% chance of developing ADHD if they watch 3 hours of TV a day", which is not what it's saying at all.

    • You're absolutely right. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aug24 ( 38229 )
      People should always remember: Correlation != Causality

      While the article doesn't argue causality, its conclusions do support limiting kids' time in front of the TV (suggesting reversability), and every idiot journalist will take it that way.

      It reminds me of a research article a few years ago showing that kids who didn't get breakfast didn't do well at school, so millions were spent enabling school cafeterias to serve breakfasts. When the results were in a few years later it became clear this had had litt
      • I agree...these are the paving stones for the research grants of tomorrow. First the idea must be supplanted in the minds of the public. People here on slashdot are no doubt smart enough to see the future...then I got my Masters' in Television Pshycology...

      • It reminds me of a research article a few years ago showing that kids who didn't get breakfast didn't do well at school, so millions were spent enabling school cafeterias to serve breakfasts. When the results were in a few years later it became clear this had had little effect. The actual relationship was that parents who can't be bothered to feed their kids also don't make sure they study.

        Of course, in my case, and many of my friends, that would be "parents who don't feed their kids breakfast also don'

  • As one or two others have pointed out, this research doesn't not attempt to show that frequent TV viewing causes ADHD, only that the two may be linked. Watching too much TV when young may contribute to ADHD, or ADHD-prone children may find TV more fascinating.

    However, I live with a 3rd grader that has been diagnosed with ADHD and has been taking a medication for it for two years now. If anything, the kid watches more TV now than before, simply because he can now sit still for longer. I wasn't there when h

  • Wrong Measure (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) * on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:40AM (#8769720) Journal
    Besides as already noted they show correlation but not causation (despite the fact they try real hard to imply it), they don't even use a valid measure of ADD. They use a measure of hyperactivity. Hyperactivity is not ADD. ADD can occur with or without hyperactivity, and hyperactivity can be due to other than ADD.

    It is well known that kids with ADD, even with hyperactivity, can sit and focus on active things for long periods of time (TV, video games, etc.). It is far more likely that lots of TV watching can be a sign of burgeoning ADD symptoms (or a very busy parent).

    Anyone interested in what ADD is and isn't should read chapters 9 and 10 in Diane McGuiness's book "When Children Don't Learn". She pretty much tears a new one into the present tendency to diagnose any kid with any problems as having ADD.

    • Besides as already noted they show correlation but not causation (despite the fact they try real hard to imply it), they don't even use a valid measure of ADD. They use a measure of hyperactivity. Hyperactivity is not ADD. ADD can occur with or without hyperactivity, and hyperactivity can be due to other than ADD. It is well known that kids with ADD, even with hyperactivity, can sit and focus on active things for long periods of time (TV, video games, etc.). It is far more likely that lots of TV watching

  • ADHD is a myth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by parvenu74 ( 310712 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:43AM (#8769750)
    I need to lookup where I heard this first, but there was a study done back in the 70's (I think) about the correlation of attention span and television.

    The findings suggested that TV causes shortened attention spans by physically altering pathways in the brain. The effect is similar to muscle memory (you can all type your 28 character password in 1.5 seconds without needing to actually look at the keyboard, right? That's muscle memory.) and can either be reinforced by watching lots of TV or reduced by not watching TV and reading books instead. Because the nature of the medium of television is such that topical changes occur very fast (approx every 30 seconds) and more or less without end (until you turn it off), you are physically training the brain to deal with shortened periods of time on which to concentrate. This might explain why after watching MTV for a few minutes you might find yourself saying "my brain hurts!!!"

    With children, this is especially problematic because the habits (physical and otherwise) they form will be with them forever. If they *learn* to have a 30 second attention span through the dominant medium in their life, then they will will end up having great difficulty concentrating for periods of time longer than what is normally required of them. Consequense? They are diagnosed as "having ADHD" (which I think is just a scam invented by shrinks and the drug companies... why discipline or educate your child when you can say they are 'disabled' and just medicate them instead?).
    • you can all type your 28 character password in 1.5 seconds without needing to actually look at the keyboard, right

      This depends on how fast my key repeat rate is set for... And I do need to look just once...

      Password: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      -bs

    • Re:ADHD is a myth (Score:1, Informative)

      by idlemind ( 760102 )
      ADHD is a myth? Invented by drug companies and shrinks? That sounds rather paranoid. In the medical field, it is commonly accepted that it exists. To disregard all the research that has been put into it is silly. Do you think migraines are a myth as well? Your objection seems to be to the way ADHD is dealt with. You propose that children "learn" to have a 30 second time span via exposure to the rapid topical changes on television. One aspect that is common in many people with ADHD is an ability to "hyperfo
      • Actually, there are psychologists and psychiatrists out there who say it is a myth. They are a minority, but it isn't necessarily as dogmatically accepted as you'd have it.

        It was, after all, obvious to everyone for millenia that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun orbited the earth.

        Just because everybody agrees that something is so doesn't actually make it so. Not even if the experts all agree.

        http://www.adhdfraud.com/ [adhdfraud.com]

      • There is certainly something called ADHD that some people have. We have little idea of the cause, and less idea why ritalin seems to help.

        It is also fairly certain that like any vogue disorder of the week, there are a lot of kids diagnosed with it that, in fact, and just bored with an entirely inadequate education.

        It is important to remember that at one time, the experts were quite certain that mental illness was caused by daemonic posession, and that the best cure was to whip the patient until the daem

    • Re:ADHD is a myth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sgt York ( 591446 ) <`ten.knilhtrae' `ta' `mlovj'> on Monday April 05, 2004 @06:46PM (#8774254)
      Myth? Probably not.

      Overhyped? Oh, hell yes

      There is a real syndrome ADHD, and people with that syndrome require treatment. It is not, however, as prevelant as the statistics may suggest. Parents with "problem children" want an easy way out and a way to not have to blame their kid. Pharmaceutical companies aren't going to turn down sales and will market to these parents, and doctors will get pressured by both sides. It's safe! My kid needs it!

      A similar thing happened with dyslexia in the 1970s. My mother was an elementary school teacher at the time, and she still gets infuriated about the overdiagnosis at the time. A kid would have trouble in school, and the teacher would suggest some parent/kid study time. Parent would read about dyslexia in the paper, and become convinced their kid had it. Because it couldn't possibly be beacuse they don't spend enough time with their kid...it couldn't possibly the the kid's, or.....God forbid!....the parents' fault! They'd find a shrink and shop until one "gave" their kids dyslexia. And now evrybody has an excuse.

      It happened then, and I think it's happening now, too. Some people really do have ADHD, but the majority of those labeled with it probably do not.

      Not that it's a bad idea to pull your kid out from in front of the TV. Besides, it's a helluva lot more fun to take them outside and look for bugs than anything else you could possibly want to do.

  • No way (Score:2, Funny)

    by wan-fu ( 746576 )

    This is completely false. When I was a tiny baby, my dad watched sports and he would seat me next to him to watch sports on TV.

    What was I talking about again? I love sports. Wait, was I talking about sports or TV?

    I think SportsCenter is on. Bye.

  • Wrong view (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mad Quacker ( 3327 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:51AM (#8769849) Homepage
    Everyone is making a fundamental but somehow questioned assumption here:
    That the change in children is bad, and the lack of focus on rudimentary tasks is bad.

    I see it the other way, we are more used to sensory input. As a result the mundane bores us more. Yes sometimes when I should be focusing I'm not, but that's because it's so _boring_. Nobody is measuring how many tasks I can pay attention to at once, and no one is measuring how well I can focus in these situations.

    I've noticed this difference between generations between myself and my dad using a computer. He can't tolerate more than one window open at a time, just gets confused. On the other hand I have between 10-30 different windows running on at least two screens at all times, not including vnc sessions into other boxes.

    However in the machine that the public school system is supposed to be - cranking out automatons that must be satisfied with their jobs no matter what - require people to pay attention to boring things. For example manufacturing and retail jobs. This is the philosophy that public schools have followed for a very long time. Perhaps the information overload at an early age is countering this conditioning, I like it.

    • Re:Wrong view (Score:3, Interesting)

      by grunthos ( 574421 )

      As a result the mundane bores us more. Yes sometimes when I should be focusing I'm not, but that's because it's so _boring_.

      Yes, life is full of boring things. I want stimulation. I want instant gratification. I want sugar and movies on demand and Britney Spears and overnight delivery and instant downloads and on and on and on.

      Ever since our ancestors 10000 years ago stopped eating every fruit and seed they found, and started planting some of them in the ground and waiting half a year instead, life s

      • Re:Wrong view (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Mad Quacker ( 3327 )


        Ever since our ancestors 10000 years ago stopped eating every fruit and seed they found, and started planting some of them in the ground and waiting half a year instead, life started getting more boring. The basis of civilization is the deferment of gratification.

        Try looking up "panem et circenses". On the other hand, don't bother; it'll be too boring. How about this one: "Here we are now, entertain us". Interesting how you can go from Juvenal to Kurt Cobain, and see there is still nothing new under the

        • I've never heard of civilization being defined in terms of agriculture. The definitions of civilization that I'm familiar with (and I took a lot of cultural geography classes, so I've got a good background for this) are concerned with urbanization. The tie-in, however, is pretty obvious in that agriculture is what makes cities trivially possible. (Other possibilities exist for the creation of cities, but agriculture is most common and is the easiest one)

          Of course, defining civilization in terms of urban

    • Re:Wrong view (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 )

      Yes sometimes when I should be focusing I'm not, but that's because it's so _boring_.

      As my karate sensei is found of saying, only boring people get bored.

      If you learn to focus - which takes work, no question - you'll find that even the most mundane things have their touch of the transcendental. "Miraculous power and marvelous activity, Chopping wood and carrying water." Consult any Zen master for further enlightenment.

      Nobody is measuring how many tasks I can pay attention to at once, and no one is

    • I think that if, in your leisure, you can construct a clear written argument over three paragraphs, you're probably not suffering.

      I currently have 53 "tasks" open on my machine. It's f-ing insane and I'm sick of it. I'd like to be able to shut everything off for an hour and focus on one thing at a time... which generally means 5 or 6 "tasks".

      I don't think there is going to be a new super-generation who can have hundreds of tasks open simultaneously, collaborating on multiple subjects with multiple tea

  • I agree (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr. Piddle ( 567882 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:53AM (#8769879)

    TV shows for children, for marketing reasons, have to cater to a pretty low denominator for attention span. TV networks have done their studies about optimum topic length for ad revenue, most likely, so this conflict of interest is not in the interest of our children.

    Worse than TV alone is leaving the TV on while trying to do other things with children. Sitting down to do a puzzle or a game with a child while the TV is on and in line of sight is just hopeless. He/She is frequently looking towards the TV, because the constant change in images is so distracting.

    During an early age, when the brain is still developing, how can TV not be screwing up our children?
  • I imagine that in 10 years we'll be seeing studies about how too much Internet/computer/video game use will also result in ADHD

    I doubt you'll have to wait that long.

    Are Computer, Video and Arcade Games Affecting Children's Behavior? An Empirical Study [technostress.com]

  • This ADHD business is total nonsense... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JohnLi ( 85427 ) * on Monday April 05, 2004 @01:26PM (#8770854) Homepage
    ..anyone wanna go ride bikes?

  • as a "burnt out Professional" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stupidsocialscientis ( 689586 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @01:34PM (#8770945)
    I am a psychologist who works for a school district. I cannot speak for all of my peers, but I can address my experiences/observations. Some children are signficantly less attentive and more active than their same-age, same-gender classmates in the same situation. The causal factors are of course hotly debated, but I think it is silly to debate the existence of ADHD. IMO it is not frequently overdiagnosed, but I do believe that it is often over-medicated. To some degree, we need to appreciate that some kids function in this manner, and they need to learn compensatory and adaptive skills to cope with it so that they can function in the "real world." Despite this difficulty.
  • That's funny, really. They must've forgotten to include this:

    Every hour of watching per day (on average) tends to raise a kid's chances of ADHD by 10%, for small amounts of watching. If this law doesn't break down for more hours, then one makes the physically impossible conclusion that watching 25 hours of TV per day makes one 250% as likely to develop ADHD, or 2.5 times as likely. Is there a "cap" of 2.4 times as likely, then? We're going into MOD 24 hours somehow?

    Methinks there's a nonlinear rel
    • The scaling represented must go something like:
      Probability of developing ADHD as a function of hours of TV per day = P[x] (where x is in hours);
      P[x] = k*P[0]*x , where P[0] is the "normal" probability of a kid who doesn't watch ANY TV to develop ADHD, and k is a (constant) proportionality factor.
      One gets nonsensical results if k is large enough that increasing x enough gives P[x]/P[0] > 1. Thus, I propose that k is a function of x, such that k[x] "softens", or k[x] has a downward c

  • not entierly true. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danalien ( 545655 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @01:46PM (#8771073) Homepage
    no, I didn't read he article....

    and reading the slashdot-summary, I just wanted to say that it may not be 'watching TV per say' that's bad ... but it would lie more in 'what you are watching'.

    Has anyone done in-depth studies about what 'content' might or might not do?

    • No, for the average American baby, the content does not matter. Imagine a wretched, drooling creature, too fat and too dumb to walk, staring for hours, mesmerized by the flashing pictures on the screen. This lower order function is completely independent of the content being shown. Babies watching television are generally too stupid to process the content being shown to them.

      • And with that attitude, your kids will be exactly as your describe.

        You'd be shocked how much kids can understand, even at very early ages. Shortly after their senses kick in, they can learn (I'm talking about sub-1 year olds here, even 3-4 months). Granted, it's simple stuff, but by the time they are one, most kids know things they should/should not do (and know when you're not looking so they can dig for Cherios in the car seat), they know their schedules (and not just for sleep/eat, but also for play), a

        • You'd be shocked how much kids can understand, even at very early ages. Shortly after their senses kick in, they can learn (I'm talking about sub-1 year olds here, even 3-4 months).

          I amused my infant son at times by sticking my tongue out at him. One day I came home, and put him on my lap. He gave a big smile, and then stuck his tongue out at me. Memory is a flaky thing, but I think he was about four months old at that point.

  • I never had television growing up, and do not have one now. I'm appalled at all the mongoloid potato babies I see everywhere. Remember, these kids are the future. (A future of hyperactivity, selfishness, and drool.)

  • Everyone has ADD. (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Mirkon ( 618432 )
    Is it just me, or is ADD becoming just like laziness and obesity, in that researchers find that everyone (at least in America) has it?
  • This article is based upon the assumption that such a condition as ADHD even exists, which is under scrutiny. Even proponents of the psy sciences question it existence other than job security for both psy doctors and pharmaceutical companies.
  • While I did grow up watching a hefty amount of cartoons, I was also absorbed into educational TV, such as PBS and Discovery Channel, and lots of cooking shows. We never watched sports at my house just because nobody (not even Dad) found any entertainment value in sports. The end results: I'm a total geek who loves to cook! Aside from that, I may be a little ADHD myself, but I never was pinned down and medicated or psychoanalyzed. I just had good parents who were attentive to my needs. When they saw I was r
  • I recall that as a kid watched a lot of tv. I also did a lot of non tv things (Legos rule) as there was only so much per day for kids to watch in the 70s. In fact i dare say i watch more tv now then i ever did as a kid, including more toons. I guess im just not seeing the problem here. I recall several occasions in which i stayed home from school to watch PBS as school was way too boring.

    So where do I fall into this vast tv wasteland people have been whining about since the 50s?
  • Every added hour of watching TV increased a child's odds of having attention problems by about 10%.

    I feel sorry for the kids who watch 13 hours worth... they're definately screwed.
  • I'm less inclined to believe that TV is to blame, and more inclined to believe it's caused by a known neurological toxin, like low levels of mercury (a great deal of which comes from coal burning plants [usnews.com], by the way).

  • ... so it sure ain't a pre-requisite. And out of all of the characteristics of ADHD I have seen listed anywhere, he has 18 out of 18, or 14 out of 14 or whatever the particular list says.

    He's six and a half now, and the total TV he's seen in his life is probably less than a month (we're not anal about it - we just don't want one in our home).

    On those occasions when he has watched TV for any length of time, it totally locks him in, and he can become very uncivilised, which he normally isn't.

    I don't thin

  • On the subject of ADHD, it's important to realize that....
  • I watched tons of TV, and I can say that not only did it not.....

    OOOH! Shiny......

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Close