TV, ADHD and Doing Useful Things 104
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."
Huh? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:If thats ADHD (Score:1, Funny)
More Likely Cause - TV is a SYMPTOM (Score:2)
I have myldly ADHD, but I never watched TV when I was young (I still het my father for that
I have ADD (not ADHD, not hyperactive, just short attention span) and there's a lot of anectodal evidence that it may be genetic - ie. a child is diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, one of the parents reads the screening test and recognizes it in him/her self. Certainly ADD/ADHD might provide an evolutionary advantage which is mostly stifled in today's
TV==bad, Computer==good (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:TV==bad, Computer==good (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:TV==bad, Computer==good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:TV==bad, Computer==good (Score:3, Interesting)
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.'
Re:TV==bad, Computer==good (Score:2)
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)?
Re:TV==bad, Computer==good (Score:1)
Re:TV==bad?, Adverts==nads (Score:1)
Re:TV==bad, Computer==good (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
"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:1)
I have to agree.. that nails it down. And I thought Teletubbies were just scary looking.
Re:Causal relationship? (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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
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)
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
Re:Causal relationship? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Causal relationship? (Score:2)
Re:Causal relationship? (Score:1)
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!
Re:Causal relationship? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Causal relationship? (Score:2)
Drugs (Score:2)
Re:Diabetes (Score:2, Insightful)
So we will define diabetes as secreting excessive sugar via the kidneys. Diabetes has many associated symptoms including blindness, lack of energy, bladder infec
Re:Diabetes (Score:2)
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
Re:Causal relationship? (Score:1)
Re:Causal relationship? (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
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)
What were we talking about again?
Children only? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Children only? (Score:3, Insightful)
The brain is always adapting. Maybe I should've said "similar" study to appease the pickers of nits?
TV vs. Computers (Score:5, Interesting)
Context, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:You're absolutely right. (Score:1)
Re:You're absolutely right. (Score:2)
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'
Relationship, not cause (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Wrong Measure (Score:2)
ADHD is a myth (Score:4, Insightful)
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?).
Re:ADHD is a myth (Score:2)
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)
Re:ADHD is a myth (Score:1)
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]
Re:ADHD is a myth (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
defining civilization (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, defining civilization in terms of urban
Re:Wrong view (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wrong view (Score:2)
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)
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?
10 Years?? (Score:1)
I doubt you'll have to wait that long.
Are Computer, Video and Arcade Games Affecting Children's Behavior? An Empirical Study [technostress.com]
Re:I Call BS! (Score:2)
I call BS too.
When I was a kid, I watched a lot of TV. Mostly cartoons (and later SitComs), mostly on the English American channels, because the local French ones were crappy in comparison.
Years later, when we started having English classes in school, I was way ahead of the learning curve.
Causality?
Re:I Call BS! (Score:1)
I call "not enough data." (Score:2)
Here's a lesson from my life: Hondas are statistically reliable. Mine has needed transmission service nine times in less than 40K miles. Does my single example mean Hondas are unreliable overall? No. It means I'm the rare example, and an unlucky son of a bitch with an unreliable civic.
Just remember "but it didn't happen that way for me" isn't a valid argument against somebody who did a controlled study with a l
This ADHD business is total nonsense... (Score:3, Insightful)
as a "burnt out Professional" (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting scaling law... (Score:1)
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
Addendum to the parent (Score:1)
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)
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?
Re:not entierly true. (Score:2)
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.
Re:not entierly true. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:not entierly true. (Score:1)
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.
Never had one (Score:2)
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.)
Re:Never had one (Score:2)
Everyone has ADD. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Assumption (Score:2)
Content makes a difference (Score:1)
Been there done that (Score:2)
So where do I fall into this vast tv wasteland people have been whining about since the 50s?
math, anyone? (Score:2)
I feel sorry for the kids who watch 13 hours worth... they're definately screwed.
Not TV, Mercury (Score:2)
We don't have a TV, our son is ADHD (Score:2)
... 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 (Score:1)
There's no corellation (Score:2)
OOOH! Shiny......
Re:i don't like those odds (Score:1)
How much of this is caused by a lack of love? (Score:2, Insightful)
How often are children whose parents have taken the time to teach them how to read (rather th
Mod parent ABSURD and MISGUIDED (Score:1)
The parents have an obligation to maintain their family - frequently three kids and two sets of parents. That is no small feat - even for a two wage earning household.
My parents fall into your so called "yuppie" classification. They also sent me to public school. Despite that, they found the time in their busy academics' schedules to teach me to read. In addition, my p
Cut-n-paste from adequacy.org (Score:5, Funny)
I don't necessarily disagree that these "diseases" are over-hyped, but I don't think there's much question that they exist. Just because a condition has a treatment or behavior that can mitigate it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Does berry-berry not exist because people could get more Thayamine and drink less alocohol?
Does scurvy not exist because people could get more Vitamine C?
I suppose malaria doesn't exist, only people stupid enough to live where there are mosquitoes?
Twit.
Re:Cut-n-paste from adequacy.org (Score:1)
As you can see, this is a complex issue not amenable to simplistic analysis.
ME, ADHD, Anorexia and RSI are different, in that the symptoms (tiredness, aches and pains, not eating) are all things that normal people do all the time. If I don't feel like going to work on Monday mornin
Re:Cut-n-paste from adequacy.org (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Maybe that's why some don't like Bush (Score:2)
What, eating the three Billy Goats Gruff wasn't enough for you? You're still hungry?