Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Government United Kingdom Science

Study: Kids Under 3 Should Be Banned From Watching TV 334

Posted by Soulskill
from the can-we-ban-them-from-being-on-tv-too dept.
An anonymous reader sends this quote from The Guardian: "Doctors and government health officials should set limits, as they do for alcohol, on the amount of time children spend watching screens – and under-threes should be kept away from the television altogether, according to a paper in an influential medical journal published on Tuesday. A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood says children's obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm. Doctors at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which co-owns the journal with the British Medical Journal group, say they are concerned."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study: Kids Under 3 Should Be Banned From Watching TV

Comments Filter:
  • by peragrin (659227) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @06:03PM (#41602125)

    I have had the chance to watch two different sets of parents raise two different sets of kids.(friends vs family)

    One set watched TV had mcdonalds occasionally, played video games.

    The other set all of the above was either banned or discouraged( TV watching was discouraged).

    Neither group was really religious(you can count the number of times both groups went to church on one hand)

    The kids with minimal TV, while not necessarily smarter are generally calmer, and listen better to their parents.

    the interaction of parent and adult at the young age at this point seems to be the trick(the oldest child is 7)
    As far as learning, the kids without TV are able to deal with complex puzzles(for their age at least) quite easily.

    of course 4 kids 2 from each family is hardly noteworthy for standard deviation.

  • From TFA (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @06:03PM (#41602133)

    The study says that a lack of interaction is the root cause of the issue, and there is a pretty obvious rebuttal in TFA:

    But the issue is controversial and his opinions and standing are questioned by Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University who says that although this is an important topic, Sigman's paper is not "an impartial expert review of evidence for effects on health and child development". "Aric Sigman does not appear to have any academic or clinical position, or to have done any original research on this topic," she said. "His comments about impact of screen time on brain development and empathy seem speculative in my opinion, and the arguments that he makes could equally well be used to conclude that children should not read books."

  • Probably adults too. (Score:4, Informative)

    by bored (40072) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @06:03PM (#41602135)

    Everyone has been saying that adults need to limit their exposure to tv as well, based on the idea that sitting around for extended periods of time can cause health problems.

    Based on personal experience, I suspect that those studies showing extremely low levels of brain activity in people watching TV is also going to result in eventual proof that watching TV actually makes people dumber. Your brain needs "exercise" the same way as the rest of your body. So instead of having hobbies, or playing sports people just sit around and let the TV fill their eyes/ears. Of course this is going to be reflected in a "dumbing down" of society in general as those hours are taking up time that might have been spent on more stimulating activities.

  • by slew (2918) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @06:08PM (#41602199)

    Apparently, this guy (psychologist Dr. Aric Sigman) apparently has lots of agendas...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1149207/How-using-Facebook-raise-risk-cancer.html [dailymail.co.uk]

    Not saying that TV is good for you, but sometimes you have to look at the source of this stuff and wonder how seriously to take it...

  • Not science based (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @06:17PM (#41602267) Journal

    This is one of the most artful academic smackdowns I've read:

    But the issue is controversial and his opinions and standing are questioned by Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University who says that although this is an important topic, Sigman's paper is not "an impartial expert review of evidence for effects on health and child development". "Aric Sigman does not appear to have any academic or clinical position, or to have done any original research on this topic," she said. "His comments about impact of screen time on brain development and empathy seem speculative in my opinion, and the arguments that he makes could equally well be used to conclude that children should not read books."

    Read this as "Clinicians have no idea how to do meta-analysis. He's making this shit up".

  • by notsoanonymouscoward (102492) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @06:46PM (#41602473) Journal

    In other news, guy with no qualifications makes unqualified statements...

    But the issue is controversial and his opinions and standing are questioned by Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University who says that although this is an important topic, Sigman's paper is not "an impartial expert review of evidence for effects on health and child development". "Aric Sigman does not appear to have any academic or clinical position, or to have done any original research on this topic," she said. "His comments about impact of screen time on brain development and empathy seem speculative in my opinion, and the arguments that he makes could equally well be used to conclude that children should not read books."

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Working...