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This discussion has been archived.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 phrackwulf (589741) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @06:51PM (#41602007) Homepage

    The real consequence of those "Baby Einstein" tapes now becomes clear. I also don't see television as something inherently bad for kids. But too much of anything is often poisonous. Television takes up time that could better be spent running around playing tag or staring at lego blocks thinking about making neat things, or playing with my little pony, in some of, um our cases. Hopefully this starts to re-inject some sanity into the mix.

  • I'm fine... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:03PM (#41602129)
    I watched TV for years... mom would set me in front of the boob tube in my swing and I turned out jim dandy. The upside is I can remember tons and tons of commercial jingles, usually while sitting down ironically enough.

    Seriously though, limits are important. Limits set by parents. The Nanny State is quite adamant about making sure they are involved in your private lives. Too many people simply surrender control to the almighty state. It's baffling.
  • Re:PASS MORE LAWS (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Ziggitz (2637281) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:04PM (#41602141)
    Yeah cause god forbid we perform research and discover practices that can cause harm to our children that isn't obvious and then take measures to protect against it. But Government so fuck it, go have fun with you lead painted chew toys little Tommy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:06PM (#41602181)

    TV makes you stupid. I've been saying that for years. I'm one of those people that grew up without a TV. I don't typically share this information with people (I don't like being "that guy"), but it seems relevant...

    As a child, it irked me that I didn't have any context for understanding the TV shows that all my friends were watching. As a teenager, I found it difficult to fit in, since I didn't have TV to insert fashion trends and pop cultural phenomena into my consciousness.

    As an adult, however, I consider my parents' choice to not have a TV in the household to be one of the best child-rearing decisions they made. Why? Hard to say, but to sum it up, I'm smarter and more motivated than my peers. Instead of anesthetizing myself on the couch with the mindless tripe you find on TV, I read books and study topics that are of interest to me. I actively seek out information about what is going on in the world, rather than having news/opinions (it's hard to separate the two, if you get such information from TV) spoon-fed to me. It amazes me that people piss away their lives watching garbage that is, as far as I can tell, designed solely to make you consume while simultaneously making you unhappy with your life.

    If you have a TV near you, turn it on for a second and count the number of seconds in between scene changes (where what you are watching switches to a different camera, angle, perspective, etc.). In a lot of the media consumed by kids/teens today, that interval is often 0-5 seconds. Reflect, for a moment, on what that might do to one's capacity for attention and focus.

    There is a huge disconnect between what is portrayed on television and actual reality. Since kids today are socialized primarily by the media, this ought to be cause for at least some level of concern. Whenever I see people on TV (especially the talking heads), my first thought is always "People don't look like that".

    And don't get me started on advertising.

    my opinions on this matter, summed up: people ought to be more discriminating when it comes to what they are willing to expose their consciousness to.

  • Some TV is fine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GreatDrok (684119) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:07PM (#41602193) Journal

    Don't park your kid in front of a TV all day, but a little TV has to be fine. We would go insane if we didn't have some down time while the TV provided entertainment. The main thing we do is stick to DVDs rather than live TV to limit exposure to all those adverts.

  • Yeah Limits! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by U8MyData (1281010) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:11PM (#41602227)
    I think there should be limits on Doctors and government officials constantly drumming up studies on what is good for us. We know already and the vascillations of these studies is way more harmful to my mental health and well being than say TV ever would be. Get the hell out of my and others business.
  • by fm6 (162816) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:21PM (#41602309) Homepage Journal

    The real consequence of those "Baby Einstein" tapes now becomes clear.

    Huh? Is that sarcasm? Or what? You seem to be assuming that there's some ironical fact that obvious to everybody, but it ain't obvious to me

    I also don't see television as something inherently bad for kids.

    Well, TFA gives several reasons why developmental psychologists think it is. Care to share why you think they're wrong, or is this just more obvious stuff everybody's supposed to know?

    But too much of anything is often poisonous. Television takes up time that could better be spent running around playing tag or...

    OK, I'm sure we can all agree that too much of a good thing is a bad thing. That doesn't change the act that very little of a bad thing is a bad thing.

  • Re:I'm fine... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PeanutButterBreath (1224570) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:27PM (#41602351)

    Too many people simply surrender control to the almighty state. It's baffling.

    Why is it baffling? These are the same people who can't drag themselves or their children away from the almighty TV.

    Why should children and the society that they will inhabit suffer because their parents are too incompetent to set limits? Anti-government paranoia uber-alles?

  • by PeanutButterBreath (1224570) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:37PM (#41602417)

    Your brain needs relaxation too - TV's no different than reading a book or any other mostly passive activity.

    Citation?

    TV is the product of decades of study to find ways to keep you watching, indefinitely if possible. It is the junk food of entertainments -- highly engineered to push every available button that will keep you consuming, with zero regard for the impact of that consumption on the consumers health or well being.

    How is it "relaxing" to be assailed by an endless stream of manipulative messages designed to stimulate all manner of consumption, often by promoting various anxieties?

  • by Dishevel (1105119) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:38PM (#41602421)

    Seriously though.
    Government should stay the fuck out of it.
    Parents should raise their children. Maybe if we did not make it free to have kids by picking up the tab for them the less responsible people would have less of them.
    If they want to have the TV babysit their kids they get the kids they raise.
    Give it another 30 years and Government will just take the children after birth and raise them. Can not leave it to parents to raise their own children.

  • by bennomatic (691188) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:49PM (#41602495) Homepage
    I appreciate the guidelines, but to some degree, the best guideline is: Don't be an idiot; pay attention to your kid, and if you see signs of a problem, be a parent and change what your kid is allowed to do.

    I've got a 3.5 year-old, and in his first few months of infancy, we could totally watch TV while holding him, let him loll around on the floor and play while the TV was on, and he didn't even pay attention to it. He was much more interested in Mom and me, and even more so, his little musical toys.

    But at about six months, my wife was watching the news while feeding him, and suddenly he turned away from the boob and looked at the TV like, "WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE?!?!" And immediately, we knew that he couldn't watch TV.

    We kept him away from all TV for about another year and a half, when the nanny who was helping out two mornings a week went down to one morning a week (and eventually none), and if the house was going to stay tidy, my wife needed a distraction. Since he was two, we introduced him to Netflix and Dora the Explorer.

    On a normal day, he gets one episode of whatever his current favorite show is (currently Blues Clues). It's always educational, and the little guy is totally OK with it. Sometimes he gets bored, shuts down the laptop and announces he's done and goes right to his Legos. The only times he watches more than one a day are when he's sick with a cold and we're trying to keep him in bed.

    The first time he ever watched a full-length movie (Cars 2) was, coincidentally, when he was 3. We all had a family cold, and I needed to get some additional sleep. He loves his toy cars, so I figured he'd love the movie, and I told him that since he's such a big boy, he could watch that. He loved it, and it's been a great tool to have, for example, on a recent road trip we did. He wouldn't have made it all the way to Tahoe without Cars 2. The funny thing is that in the last couple of weeks, he's been asking just to see specific scenes in the evenings. Five or 10 minutes, and he's done. He's got more self-control than I did any time before the age of 30.

    But not all kids are like that. Some will always have a problem, some will never have a problem. Maybe we got lucky, maybe we actually did the right thing by removing exposure between 6- and 24 months. I don't know, since I can't do the experiment. But I feel pretty strongly that a good, engaged parent can take big steps towards mitigating any problems with screen time just by remaining engaged.

    Believe me, "remaining engaged" is easier said than done at some points in a child's development--parenthood can be pretty demanding--but even a C-grade level of engagement is better than an A+ enforcement of a blanket rule. If you take that sort of stimulation away from a kid who can handle it, you might be missing great opportunities for learning: my kid's got an incredible vocabulary because of Dora, Diego, Dinosaur Train, Blues Clues and Cars 2; my wife and I can certainly take some credit, but there are things he says that we know we didn't teach him directly; there's got to be some value there.
  • by The Good Reverend (84440) <michael AT michris DOT com> on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:49PM (#41602501) Homepage Journal

    No, "TV" is a device that allows me to watch visual and audio stimuli - it's unrelated to the content, which is what you're describing. I choose what I put on my television, and I'm sorry if you've only been exposed to the kind of programming you've described.

    Also, everything you've just discussed can be said for books (and many websites, for that matter). Are you giving up reading and internet surfing, too?

  • Re:I'm fine... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @07:50PM (#41602517)

    Too many people simply surrender control to the almighty state. It's baffling.

    You do realize that under a functional democratic government, the will of the state is approximately the same as the will of a majority of its people, right? So it's hardly baffling that people want to do what they think ought to be done anyway, and for the majority who support the state position, it happens to coincide with what the state wants. I suppose it might look like "surrender" to someone who doesn't understand how the state works. The minority is free to complain, protest, sway public opinion, and so on, but if they don't even understand how democratic states function, they're not going to get very far. Yes, the majority is often wrong, contradictory, self-destructive, and short-sighted, and that is often reflected in the state as well. The great victory of democracy is that the state is us, not them.

    To be more specific, most people think that doctor's advice should be followed. Since the doctors are offering advice regarding minors who are too young to make that decision for themselves (under 3 years old), they think the state (the collective will of the people) should impose the value of following doctor's advice even on childcare workers who disagree with that advice. This is equivalent to other regulation around custodial behaviors, such as child beating, genital mutilation, and other areas where the majority/state decide that medical advice trumps parental/custodial rights. Parenting/custodianship, after all, is a much more paternal relationship than the state, because the child cannot change the makeup of their family or daycare in the way citizens can change the makeup of their governments.

    If you are posting from a state which is a dictatorship or a sham republic, I apologize if I came off as a little condescending. You see, even in democracies, there are people who think the government is distinct from the people.

  • by Radtastic (671622) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @08:01PM (#41602607)

    Seriously though. If they want to have the TV babysit their kids they get the kids they raise.

    Unfortunately, rights surrounding the raising of children can't be as simple as you think they are.

    Everyone else 'gets the kids that you raised' when you do an in adequate job in preparing them for life. Certainly, not in every case, but you can probably link higher incidents of poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, and maybe a dozen more undesired outcomes of which a person's course in life was directed fairly early on in life because of poor parenting.

  • by Belial6 (794905) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @08:19PM (#41602765)
    Sure, but the parenting that is recommended by the 'experts' is the bad parenting. Even the recommendation that children should have screen time is caused by the 'experts' making conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. The reason that you see a correlation between poorly developed kids and large screen times isn't due to the screens. It is due to the child being exposed to an extremely limited set of information. You see this behavior across almost all demographics. The parents see that their kid likes a particular video and the parent puts the same program in over and over and over. It truly is a case of correlation instead of causation. It just so happens that TV is the witch that child development 'experts' obsess on hunting.

    Having the government tell people the 'right' way to raise children is just throwing fuel on the fire.
  • by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @08:36PM (#41602895) Homepage Journal

    If you have a TV near you, turn it on for a second and count the number of seconds in between scene changes (where what you are watching switches to a different camera, angle, perspective, etc.). In a lot of the media consumed by kids/teens today, that interval is often 0-5 seconds. Reflect, for a moment, on what that might do to one's capacity for attention and focus.

    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

    Apparently a childhood of not watching TV turns people into smug egomaniacs who believe rubbish because it makes them feel better about themselves.

    That sentence, that I just wrote, is ridiculous nonsense.

    It is ridiculous nonsense on equal par in terms of what you just wrote.

    The only difference is I have a data point of 1 to support my rubbish assertion.

  • by Belial6 (794905) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @08:53PM (#41603023)
    Your description betrays your bias. You listed TV, McDonalds, and Video Games. These combined with corporal punishment are the four horsemen of the child development apocalypse. You have been bombarded with the idea that these things are the root of all childhood ills so heavily, that you just assume that they are the reasons for children's problems.

    My experience with kids listening across many dozens of families has lined up 100% with whether the parent is clear on their expectations, and consistent on making sure the child does what the parent tells them. I have seen plenty of kids that watch lots of TV, play plenty of video games and eat McDonalds regularly who are well behaved and generally calm. I have also seen plenty of kids that don't have a TV, don't play video games, and never eat fast food who are holy terrors. The behavior, good or bad has always lined up with the behavior of the parents.

    With the ability to solve complex puzzles, I have seen the not surprising correlation with the complexity of the concepts and games they are exposed to. Whether playing video games, or not, the kids that were presented with complex puzzles got better at them. Those that were not presented with complex puzzles did not. We see the same thing with TV programming. Every show that a kid watches presents new information. When a child only sees one program looped over and over, they very quickly learn everything they are going to from that program. Once they have done that, they might as well be staring at a wall. Put a kid staring at wall for 8 hours a day for a few years, and you can bet that they will not be as good at solving complex puzzles as well as a kid that has spent that same amount of time solving a wide range of puzzles on their computer.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @09:01PM (#41603079)

    Yes, that's right, the irresponsible will pull their socks up and take responsibility for their children because they are now in even more poverty.
    OR back on planet Earth:
    You will get yet more kids raised in utter poverty, leading to lowered IQ through nutritional deficiency, leading to less education and opportunity, leading to lower paid jobs if any at all.

    Pair this with the resentment have-nots develop when surrounded by haves, and bombarded with advertisements for things they cannot afford, and the obvious recourse is to prey on their fellow humans to fulfill their needs, real and perceived. Remember the lowered IQ.

    The only thing wrong with the "Stop assisting them and they'll do it themselves" argument is that it ignores completely ignores the fact that if they could do it themselves they would. People really aren't enamored with poverty.
    The path out of generational poverty is long and slow and requires positive assistance, and may never have a 100% success rate.

    Only the confirmed heartless conservative with their head jammed up their arse thinks that forcing more children into poverty and suffering is a good thing.
    This is what happens when ideology trumps humanity.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @09:38PM (#41603295)

    And your raised how many children?

    I find that to be false, useless and offensive. Before I had kids, I gave my sister advice on more than one occassion. She, like so many others gave the "you don't have children" response. Later, after I had a few of my own, she came back to me and asked if it was what I thought. "Of course it is" was my response. My advice, given as a childless 20-something was correct. It was correct when I was a 20-something with no children. It is correct when I am a 40-something parent. To dismiss good advice because you don't like the source seems absurd, but parents everywhere do it.

  • by gagol (583737) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @10:05PM (#41603459)

    LOL, but getting back to topic in a serious manner... I do not have kids but...

    I kicked TV out of my life about 10 years ago... and I could not be happier. I still download my top 3 shows and the occasionnal movie, but without the ads. It makes a world difference (no ads). I think the ads are the worst.

    Respecfully, gagol, 12+ beers and counting...

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @10:53PM (#41603743) Homepage Journal

    Government should stay the fuck out of it.
    Parents should raise their children. Maybe if we did not make it free to have kids by picking up the tab for them the less responsible people would have less of them

    When you say "less responsible", I assume you mean "poor".

    But see, it's not just poor parents who turn out to be shitty parents, and society pays the bill either way.

    It's possible that if parents were doing their job, we wouldn't need government to try to do something it wasn't designed to do and raise their kids for them.

    To be fair to parents, though, when mom and dad both have to work full time it doesn't leave a lot of time and energy for parenting. My friends in Finland who have a couple of kids both are allowed to have extensive time off to take care of the kids without losing their jobs or income. They work for private industry, but that society puts a higher priority on raising kids, I guess. They also have a lot less violent crime (all kinds of crime, actually) and, strangely, greater social mobility than the US.

    Over the past 30 years, the erosion of the middle class has also meant the erosion of all sorts of social metrics. And the one statistic that has the greatest correlation to all those declining social standards is increasing income disparity. Greater inequality, past a certain point (which we passed in the 1980s) causes just about every single measurement of a society's health.

    The problem is not the government. The fact that the government is becoming the family of last resort is just a symptom. The problem is we've got an economic elite that has decided to shit on the social contract, reflected mainly in a corporate ownership class who no longer feels any connection or responsibility to society, because their "global" status has unmoored them from any particular society. They are above all that now, having broken away from any community save the community of the elite. And the rest of society is just eating each other, young ones first.

  • Re:PASS MORE LAWS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WillyWanker (1502057) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @11:28PM (#41603953)

    Seriously! I mean, hey, my kids love beer and cigarettes, how dare the government tell me how to raise 'em! And if I want to send my kids out to work to earn their keep what business is it of the government? NONE! Buggers are expensive to raise, at least they should chip in, amirite? And school? School is for little pussies. My kids learn from the school of hard knocks, like when I belt them for not bringing home enough money from their job or smoking too many of my ciggies. So yeah government, stay out of my kid's lives! I know what's best for 'em, yessiree I do. Next week that nice man down the block is gonna give me $500 to take pics of my little girl in her bathing suit while I'm at work. Hells yes! Nothing wrong with that! I'm the daddy and what I say goes. I don't need no Uncle Sam sticking his big nose into my business. BACK OFF SAM! I own these kids and they'll do as I say!

  • by Gripp (1969738) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @11:33PM (#41603997)

    Government should stay the fuck out of it.

    This. Period. Why for the love of sanity would ANYONE be like "hey, you, mr gobment! Can you come dictate how we live our lives, pleeeeease?"

    Yeah, no. Kids *should* be raised rather than babysat by the TV. Yes. But making laws that dictate things like this is a step in the wrong direction; for so many reasons. Instead what we ought to be asking for is new laws that limit the amount an employer can ask of employees. I personally like the Austrailian over-time laws, as a start. They allow for occasional OT without penalty to the company, but NOT constant life-sucking that is the modern "at least you have a job" motivator for increased margins - at the cost of increased unemployment rates, and your personal time. Then people might actually have the time to watch and spend with their kids. It's at least a step in that direction. Incentives for telecommuting would be ideal as well. There is little reason it isn't done more extensively. Mostly petty bickering and fear that employees wont actually work. But... how about you actually measure them based on performance?

    I want to avoid going on a full blown tirade here. I've personally had several jobs that demanded 60+ hour weeks from its salaried staff, and acted as if it was not only normal, but anything less made you a slacker. Even if for only a week. And I'm maybe overly bitter about it. But my point is, there are many things like these that could be done to accomplish the desired effect (plus many other positives) without giving the government intimate control over our lives. How about we do them instead.. thanks.

  • by Belial6 (794905) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @12:27AM (#41604269)
    Of course, that is one of those fake requests for citation. It is like telling someone that if they don't like how the cars are designed that they should start their own car company, or if they don't like how their ISP is run that they should start their own ISP. Technically possible but in practice producing so large of a cost that no one is going to do it to prove their point on an internet forum.

    Even if I pulled a bunch of links to show my point, you would pull a bunch to counter it. You would come up with more because the 'experts' have their canon. It is an industry filled by a self selecting group that act as an echo chamber for supporting their canon. They do studies, and then jump to conclusions with no explanation for how they got their conclusions from their data.

    I on the other hand do explain how I come to my conclusions based on their data. Which part is it you think isn't rational? The part where I say that kids who have their information limited get stunted? The part where I say that parents play the same program over and over? The part where I say that playing the same program over and over is limiting the child's exposure to new information? The part where I say that this crosses demographics? Really. Which part do you think is irrational?
  • by jandersen (462034) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @12:58AM (#41604413)

    Certainly, not in every case, but you can probably link higher incidents of poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, and maybe a dozen more undesired outcomes of which a person's course in life was directed fairly early on in life because of poor parenting.

    Sadly, the problem here is poor parenting skills, and it is going to take more than legislation to sort that out. Personally, I think a number of important life skills should be taught in school - parenting being one, but also things like household management (cookery, basic cleaning, family economy etc). And since it actually is a problem, how to handle intoxication and recreational drugs use - it would be far better to approach this subject with a clear and open mind, rather than hushing it up and leaving it to shady characters like we do now.

  • by wierd_w (1375923) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @05:58AM (#41605393)

    This is a fallacy. Let me help you.

    (Cue cheesy 1950s documentary music.)

    Mr. And Mrs. Smith live in a quiet suburban neighborhood. Mr. Smith has a decent job. Nothing special, Bob Smith just runs a computerized screw press. Mrs. Smith stays at home, watching and caring for their lovely 3 year old daughter Tiffany.

    As little Tiffany grew up, she started primary school, leaving Mrs. Smith with a great deal of unused time on her hands, and a rising food bill for their growing daughter.

    One day, Mrs. Smith approached Mr. Smith about the prospects of taking on a part time job. She'd still be home in time to see their daughter Tiffany come home from school, and to ensure that all the domestic chores were done, and the family would get a little spending money they could use to go on a family vacation some time. Afterall, that's what the Jones family had done.

    Little did Mr and Mrs smith realize, but as the amount of consumer buying power of the median household increases, so too does the cost of various consumer products, due to the intrinsic nature of the lw of supply and demand.

    Here we see a simple graph, depicting the willingness to spend, intersecting the willingness of a merchant to sell.

    As you can clearly see, that as Mr and Mrs smith's financial fortunes improve, their willingness to spend extra on products they routinely buy increases. The natural market reaction to this event, is the inevitable adjusted price offered by merchants.

    Now, Mr. And Mrs. Smith are both required to work. Mr. Smith still works as a screw machine operator, and Mrs. Smith still works part time at the local nursing home. But, now that they are both working, the market has naturally taken advantage of their increased buying power. Now instead of Mrs. Smith working just to help improve their quaity of life, she has to work just to make sure the two of them can pay their bills each month.

    Seeing that the two of them are still struggling financially due to increased costs of living, Mr Smith suggests that Mrs. Smith switch to a full time occupation...

    Now, dear viewers.. where do you suppose this will lead?

    In just 5 years time, Mr and Mrs smith will both be working full time jobs to purchase the same products they have always purchased, and which they were previously purchasing on only a single breadwinning paycheck just 10 years earlier.

    Working a second job, or sending a spouse to work only improves your financial situation in the short term, unless the practice is significantly undesirable that the pactice does not become mainstream.

    Market forces directly mirror, and correlate with the statistical mean of consumer spending and buying power. The very wealthy occupy only a very tiny section of the population distribution; see?

    As such, the very wealthy never truly experience the dramatic decline in their buying power as a result of a financial practice becoming a mainstream idea. Their contribution to the greater statistical game is miniscule, compared to the market forces at work in the median income bracket.

    As a result of Mr. And Mrs. Smith, and their neighbors, the Jones family, the Applebaum family across town, who were previously just barely getting by on Mr. Applebaum's miniscule pay as a waiter at a roadside cafe, are now deeply stricken with povery, as the prices of common and vital consumer goods quickly exceeds their ability to purchase.

    What is a "thriving economy" you ask?

    A thriving economy is one where products are highly available, and merchants feel a modest degree of surety that they will continue to make profits and growth of their business investments. As such, a "thriving economy" is one in which Mr and Mrs Smith, representatives of the majority of the median income bracket, have their income presicely balanced by a highly lucrative and market accepted pricing structure.

    The attempts of Mr and Mrs Smith to climb the ladder of affluence has instead only shifted the status quo, plunging other families into poverty,

  • by racermd (314140) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @09:40AM (#41606721)

    I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My wife and I have TVs in just about every room of our home. She and I watch a lot of TV - it's on in the background as well as being available for specific shows we watch. We also have a lot of other things going on in our lives and TV is just one of the things that provides us with an alternate window to the outside world or a temporary escape from our real lives.

    However, our toddler (under 3) doesn't fixate and doesn't exhibit any ADD behavior, either. For the most part, he ignores it. When he DOES pay attention to the TV, the content is usually some sort of musical content, like the music-only channels from our provider or certain talk show theme songs (he rather likes the Conan opening). We've had the kid-specific channels tuned for a while in the background but he doesn't seem to be too interested in those unless or until there's a song involved.

    I guess what I'm saying is that it very much depends on the child and parent(s). Every child is different and responds to stimuli differently. Broad generalizations like the one suggested in the original article are dangerous and irresponsible. Good parents pay attention to their child(ren) and provide guidance for them appropriately regardless of what some "expert" says. Parents are really the only ones that can really say they're experts with regards to their child(ren).

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @10:47AM (#41607387) Homepage Journal

    Of course the poor who are responsible people do tend to have 5 children they have a tough time paying for.
    Rich or poor. If you have more children than you have time or money for you are a fucking idiot and should be shot.
    Is that clear enough for you?
    Having children you can not afford or do not have time for is child abuse. Having them jsut to have them makes you a fucking horrible human being that needs to die.

    Last month, a drunk 16 year-old Lake Forest ($$$) teen killed a woman with her 2012 BMW.

    She won't get any jail time.

    This week, a 17 year old black kid, looking around and noticing the only active economy in his neighborhood, will be sentenced to 5 years for having 11 grams of cocaine. A 32 year-old investment banker will commit 15 counts of securities fraud, costing thousands of investors 20% of their life savings, and there will be no prosecution and no one will take notice. And on the rare occasion where there is a prosecution, he will pay a settlement, while admitting no wrongdoing, of about 2% of his profits from the fraud.

    And you say that I'm the one who wants to "turn this into 99% vs 1%". Here's a news flash: It's always been about 1% vs 99%.

  • by fruitbane (454488) on Wednesday October 10, 2012 @11:56AM (#41608409) Homepage

    Not at all. Let me quote you here:

    "Sure, but the parenting that is recommended by the 'experts' is the bad parenting. Even the recommendation that children should have screen time is caused by the 'experts' making conclusions and then looking for evidence to support it. The reason that you see a correlation between poorly developed kids and large screen times isn't due to the screens. It is due to the child being exposed to an extremely limited set of information."

    You say that expert-recommended parenting is bad parenting, and you just leave that open, general statement to flap in the wind with nothing to hold it up. I certainly take issue with that assertion. Further, I think there's a dearth of evidence that these 'experts' you like to put in single quotes are simply looking for evidence to support their position. When doing research you do have to have a hypothesis, and that means testing a particular assertion. You have only the current research when doing evidence analysis. I certainly wouldn't want them trying to incorporate "common sense" into their results, because most analyses I've seen of "common sense" indicate that such stuff is usually anything but correct in most cases.

    How do you know the cause of a correlation between poorly developed kids and screen time? Have you done research on the topic? That assertion requires evidence, not just gut feeling or common sense. It needs a citation or two to hold it up. It is a very specific claim and therefore needs some backing evidence.

You will lose an important disk file.

Working...