
Screens Are Bad for Young Brains - laurex
https://parentology.com/its-official-screens-are-bad-for-young-brains/
======
Waterluvian
The last three years of being a parent have left me disenchanted with experts.
I don't believe they have any idea what they're talking about and don't think
they're capable of converting their research into practical advice that does
good.

I watched first hand the harm that was done by the medical community obsessing
over "breast feeding is best and formula feeding is basically admission of
failure." That experience left me so untrusting that the medical community
isn't just on their n'th generation of, "everyone before us had it wrong, our
advice is finally the right advice."

Do you know what damage you can do when you convert some study, full of error
bars and reproducibility concerns into a blanket statement? You fuck with
struggling parents who just need a few hours of their evening to be quiet so
that they can do chores and maybe watch an episode of Netflix. Not everyone
has the luxury of a stay-at-home mom or plenty of free time or money to throw
at problems like meals and transportation. You pile onto that barely-getting-
by-near-crisis-where-alcohol-at-night-sounds-like-a-great-idea yet another
negative factor: you get to feel like a shitty parent about the screen-based
remedy that works.

It ticks me off that this junk ends up on social media because it undermines
the things that _actually_ have a real lasting effect on raising children.
Build lifestyle habits that enable you to be happy, sleep well, and spend time
with your kids. Even if that means hours of tablet time on weeknights or a
quick to make meal that isn't the healthiest.

I blame this ass-backwards non-holistic look modern medicine likes to take on
problems like these. They did the study on breast vs. bottle feeding and found
real measurable results (I do indeed believe the results are valid), but they
never found a way to quantify what practical harm they cause to parents who
get judgy nurses and a birthing room full of "Breast is Best" posters, who
eventually spend nights weeping over their inability to feed their child,
constantly feeling like they're a failed parent because they used formula or a
tablet.

So !@#$ you Parentology. With these articles you're doing a kind of harm that
you're systemically incapable of measuring. I hope people much smarter and
more articulate than me take up this banner.

~~~
jacobolus
You seem to have a serious grudge about breast feeding vs. formula. I am sorry
that was so traumatic for you. But it seems to me that this is much more to do
with “new (yuppie) parent culture” than with the medical establishment or
research community.

Having spent a bunch of time around new parents, my observation is that most
of them are way too hyped up about trivial threats. If a breast-feeding mother
drinks a glass of wine once every few days the risk to the baby is trivial. If
the baby sleeps in the same bed with the mother the risk to the baby is
trivial, unless the mother is an a severe alcoholic or high on drugs. If the
baby plays with many types of toys marked “ages 3+” while the parents are
sitting watching, the risk to the baby is trivial. If the baby climbs up on a
play structure marked “ages 4–7” while the parents are standing watching, the
risk of permanent injury is trivial. If a 2-year-old walks around barefoot on
the sidewalk, the risks are trivial. Etc.

The same kind of tendencies bring us the anti-vax movement, a rush to sanitize
all surfaces in the home, excessive fears about kidnapping, theatrical
demonstrations of disgust near smokers outside on the sidewalk, and so on.

New parents’ (and people’s in our society more generally) risk assessment and
concept of hygiene is excessively black–and–white.

But this is not the fault of “modern medicine”.

~~~
beagle3
It’s most definitely the medical establishment.

There are similar issues with the “back to sleep” campaign - the risk of SIDS
apparently is indeed Slightly lower for babies sleeping on their back, but it
is only very slightly lower, and some babies will not sleep on their back
unless they are exhausted which causes other non trivial issues. If you
actually look into the “back to sleep” study data, it is much, much weaker
than proponents imply it is.

And yet, every nurse in the hospital kept telling us with religious fervor to
not even think of letting the baby fall asleep on their stomach. I was so
impressed that I was sure the evidence was overwhelming. But after a week with
a hardly sleeping newborn (relatively speaking), I decided to look into it
myself. You should to, rather than trust the “experts”. (Or a random internet
post like mine, for that matter)

~~~
CalRobert
I would be interested in seeing a data set for the risk of SIDS from
cosleeping (even on the baby's back) vs. the risk of various other problems
from indescribably exhausted parents and a baby who will scream bloody murder
for hours and hours and hours and hours if you try to get them to sleep alone
in a crib.

Also, not to be all hippie but would we not have evolved to want to be held as
infants? What species just leaves its young to sleep without physical contact?

~~~
karatestomp
I'm leery of co-sleeping mostly because it seems to be highly correlated with
kids who have bad sleep habits and keep waking up their parents constantly
(don't worry how you'll know, they'll tell you) well into their toddler years,
and beyond. And I'm pretty sure the co-sleeping is a big part of the cause
(can't get used to waking up mom & dad for entertainment every time your
natural sleep cycle wakes you up a smidge if they're not there to wake up and
start giving you attention instantly).

But like anything else, fuck, if it's working for you and the risk is very
low, do what you need to do. I avoided it because I kept seeing hellish
outcomes but if that's not what's happening for you, go for it.

~~~
jmvoodoo
My wife and I coslept (and often still cosleep) with both of our children.
They both sleep through the night without issue.

Our oldest goes to sleep early and will insist on going to sleep when she
feels tired and will wake up with me in the morning. Our youngest fights sleep
until exhaustion and prefers to sleep in (until 9-10am if allowed). They have
been raised exactly the same way.

We take way too much credit for our children's sleep habits.

------
dragonwriter
> Some of the kids experienced parents reading often to them, and little
> screen time. Other kids who’d had lots of screen time (more than one hour
> per day, the max recommendation by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
> and the WHO) throughout early childhood.

If this description is accurate (and I haven't gone to the source and I'll
admit that popular media descriptions of scientific studies are often quite
bad), the study experimental group seems likely to differ from the control
group in two ways (parental reading time and screen time), and the one which
_isn 't_ screen time is already known to have a significant effect of exactly
the type being attributed to screen time. Which would make the study useless
for drawing conclusions about screen time. It's quite possible for children to
have parents reading to them often _and_ more than an hour a day of screen
time.

> If more screen time leads to less white matter development (as the study
> cautiously indicates), the results might be truly detrimental.

So, even with it's conclusion on screen time taken at face value (which it
looks like to shouldn'tbe), the study indicates an effect which, if true,
“might be truly detrimental”, but the headline is the total clickbait: “IT’S
OFFICIAL: SCREENS ARE BAD FOR YOUNG BRAINS”.

~~~
keytarsolo
> It's quite possible for children to have parents reading to them often and
> more than an hour a day of screen time.

I wonder if this is the case? I think you're quite right about the fact that
it's more likely the time with parents than the screentime. But I don't think
there will ever really be a chance to study kids whose time with parents and
time with screens differs.

My kids are pretty young, but because they're in bed so early there just isn't
enough time in the day for them to have dinner, a story and even an hour of TV
after pre-school. I suspect that's the case for most kids of two working
parents.

~~~
AndrewUnmuted
I was born in 89. Until I turned 9 or 10, one of my parents would read to me
every night, and I had over an hour of screen time just about every day too.

That was probably not as common back then, since it was hard to get an hour in
unless you were really into computers and happened to have one.

Today, it’s hard to find a parent who will read to their kid every night. Who
will read them good stuff like poetry, the classics, Greek mythology, etc.,
Not Harry Potter or whatever. It’s also hard to find a kid today who isn’t
exposed to at least an hour of screen time. And that’s not time being social
or productive like screens meant for kids like me - it’s time for them to be
pacified by some crap manufactured by Netflix.

The people here trying to apologize for their parenting choices and accusing
the stats of having a twisted ulterior motive, are making some puzzling
remarks. Haven’t these people not realized how much harder it is today to be a
good parent than it was in prior eras? They should have thought of that before
breeding children.

Obviously the way screens are utilized today is going to warp kids brains in
some difficult to measure ways. But better parenting would probably offset
that tremendously.

~~~
rebuilder
It's harder to be a good parent in the sense that the bar has been raised much
higher. Go ask your parents' generation how much time their parents spent with
them. Then compare to what's seen as the minimum now.

~~~
topkai22
Oh man, the time use surveys in the US are amazing here. I can’t find the data
or remember specifics, but the amount of time both moms and dads spend
parenting has gone WAY since the 60s, even as family size as plummeted.

~~~
rebuilder
Edit: I assumed you meant to write "way down" but now realize you probably
meant up... original comment below.

That's interesting! I'm mainly going by my mother's recollections of her
childhood in 1950's rural Finland, but in her words: "We kids didn't spend
time with our parents. It would have been embarrassing!"

------
wazoox
There are many meta-studies demonstrating that repeatedly for the past 20
years. TV is bad for children. Video games are bad. Phones are bad, and
tablets, and consoles, and computers. It's bad for their mood, their IQ, their
sleep, it gives them obesity, ADHD, it's bad any way you look at it; it's even
bad when the parents are watching the phone instead of interacting with their
children...

Here's one meta study:

[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-
abst...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-
abstract/2751330)

"This study suggests that education and public health professionals should
consider screen media use supervision and reduction as strategies to improve
the academic success of children and adolescents."

here's another one:

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263708644_Media_Use...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263708644_Media_Use_and_ADHD-
Related_Behaviors_in_Children_and_Adolescents_A_Meta-Analysis)

"Our results indicated a small significant relationship between media use and
ADHD-related behaviors."

~~~
bpizzi
Honest question: why don't you include books as a media?

~~~
jacobolus
From what I can tell, listening to books read aloud is by far the most
effective and efficient way to promote child language development. Listening
comprehension is a foundational prerequisite for most kinds of intellectual
work.

In comparison watching videos, playing tablet games, etc. comes nowhere close.

The differences are (1) the language in books read aloud is more often
tailored to the child’s comprehension level, because parents can figure out
whether books are too easy or too hard; (2) the range of grammar, vocabulary,
styles, ideas, etc. is much wider in books than most kids get from other kinds
of media; (3) the book is not a fixed medium but also has a live interpreter
who can define or skip difficult words, repeat sentences rephrased a different
way, answer questions, ask questions, go back to cross-reference earlier parts
of the book, point specific things out in the illustrations, etc.

Anecdotally, the preschool kids around me whose parents read to them for 1+
hours/day seem to end up advancing about twice as fast in their language
skills as their peers. YMMV.

~~~
bpizzi
Yes I heard this too. Frankly something doesn't click for me, I can't say what
exactly. The brain is far, far more complex than that, we can't boil "child
language development" down to "read them 1+ hour/day" and "limit screen time".

~~~
jacobolus
It’s not that reading is literally the only possible way to get the same kind
of linguistic input to the child. I’m sure listening to an expert storyteller,
watching a puppet show or play, listening to someone reciting poetry, having a
thoughtful conversation with an adult while looking at some wordless artwork,
singing songs together, etc. can be similarly stimulating.

The thing is: it’s hard to find actors for a play in the child’s bedroom at
night. It’s hard for parent to come up with 200 different well-plotted stories
at the appropriate level with visual props. Etc. But after 2 years of daily
practice I can read a picture book decently (including funny voices, etc.)
while half-asleep and consciously thinking about something unrelated with half
my attention.

The kind of logical reasoning, grammatical variety, vocabulary, etc. used in
books is not literally impossible to imitate with some other medium. It’s just
a lot more work and in practice not really done.

~~~
bpizzi
Don't take it personally, you're fully entitled to have your own thought on
this subject. But to me it looks like you are putting really too much
importance on bedtime readings (or at least you are citing studies and trends
that says so).

Because, I don't know if you have children, I do (8 and 6): you can't read
them a different book every evening for 1h. Even for more than 5 minutes.

You just can't. Life is messy, there's no place for such idealistic hobbies.

That's why I can't relate to those "advice" (too use kind words), I just don't
think they are relayed by real parents.

------
Misdicorl
I continue to be surprised by the scope of these studies. Has nobody figured
out that the screens are incidental and it is the content difference that
matters? Listening to several hours of inane audio books every day is unlikely
to be any better for a child's development.

Interaction. Competition. Surprise. These are the keys, not the lack of
blinken lights

~~~
riffraff
Pedagogy is hard, but I am inclined to agree.

But it's really easy to put a kid in front of some cartoon and forget about
them, they'll re-watch the same thing over and over and over, lacking
interaction, competition and surprise. So "screen time" is probably a good
enough proxy for "passive screen time", which would be bad by your definition
too.

~~~
Misdicorl
Yes of course it's important to note that screens are huge enablers of passive
consumption.

But the way we name things is important. Calling it passive consumption yields
all sorts of interesting questions. Is the sickness of Facebook/Instagram any
different from that of Netflix/YouTube? How about than Fox news? Does it
actually matter what age you are? How much is bad? Does live theater count?
What about a concert?

Parents deserve the nuanced result/questions when deciding what is right for
their children and selves (if indeed my supposition is correct ish). Calling
it screen time is lazy science until it is shown to be unique to screens
(which would be an immense surprise to me)

~~~
satyrnein
I would have thought Facebook contained interaction, competition, and
surprise, for better or worse.

~~~
Misdicorl
Only if you're publishing a lot. I think most users mostly just scroll through
their feed.

Nonetheless I see your point. Perhaps there is an interesting distinction!
Maybe worth investigating, and not particularly suggested by a 'screens are
bad' line of thinking

------
aeternum
A more skeptical interpretation of the paper (worth a read):
[https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-
study-...](https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-on-
screen-use-and-white-brain-matter-in-children/)

~~~
cwyers
> 5\. The abstract reports the study found significant associations between
> language scores and the ScreenQ, giving the impression that these are
> robust, whereas the main text notes that these associations are no longer
> significant when household income was included as a covariate. Since many
> readers only read the abstract, this is misleading.

I think "misleading" is a generous way of putting it, frankly.

------
dcolkitt
Decades of twin studies, consistently replicated across dozens of large-scale
studies, have found that family environment explains effectively 0% of the
variance in adult IQ. In contrast, genetic heritability explains well over 50%
of the cross-sectional population variance[1].

 _Always_ keep this indisputably true fact in mind when reading association
studies like the one in the link. In fact one simple exercise is to imagine a
close analogy between intelligence and height. After all, the structure of
adult IQ inheritance closely matches that of adult height[2].

Imagine if you read a study that found that kids whose parents frequently
played basketball were several inches taller. Would you conclude that
basketball _causally_ increases height? Of course not. Given what we know
about the highly genetic hereditary nature of height, there's a much more
logical conclusion. Tall parents pass along their genes and tend to have tall
kids. Tall people are more likely to play basketball. Therefore basketball
players are more likely to have tall children.

When you have highly genetically inherited traits like IQ or height,
association studies can find all sorts of superficially compelling ways to
supposedly improve the trait. However all of these findings are basically
worthless unless we control for genetics, for example by pairing siblings.

[1]
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104160800...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608007000982)
[2] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-
human...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-
height/)

~~~
rlonn
And as we all know, IQ is a perfect measure of mental capability and the only
thing that really matters in the end. Self-confidence, ambition, passion,
knowledge - that's just balderdash!

~~~
dcolkitt
Twin studies on personality factors[1] find that genetic heritability explains
40-50% of the cross-sectional variance in adults, while the impact of family
environment is non-significant. All of those factors you listed show a nearly
identical genetic pre-disposition as IQ itself.

[1]
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6494....](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x)

------
robbrown451
What if they are video chatting with a relative? Is that bad because it is a
screen?

If you are going to make an exception for such things (as they usually do),
you really need to step back and look at the whole idea of lumping all things
screen based as a single entity, "screen time."

Is it possible that the real problem isn't that it is in a screen, but it is
the type of content, the passiveness vs. interactivity, the intentionally
addictive nature of games and video content, etc? And maybe the likely
correllation between kids who spend a lot of time on screens, and parents who
aren't very interested in interacting with their kids.

------
teddyh
— _What other tools for creativity and learning do you arbitrarily limit? Do
you have a hard rule on “paper time”?_ ¹

1\. [http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2014/06/30/quantification](http://penny-
arcade.com/comic/2014/06/30/quantification)

Related blog posts:

[http://penny-arcade.com/news/post/2014/06/30/quantification](http://penny-
arcade.com/news/post/2014/06/30/quantification)

[http://penny-arcade.com/news/post/2014/06/30/screen-time](http://penny-
arcade.com/news/post/2014/06/30/screen-time)

------
superkuh
It's like once people have children something flips in their brains and they
become unable to think rationally about perceived dangers.

Screens are not bad. Screens display things. What is on the screen and how the
child is interacting with that defines what is good or bad. Screens just are.

And re: this study, when I was a kid in the 90s I used my screens to read
books (and still do). It's not either or when it comes to books and screens.

~~~
satyrnein
Do you think the AAP recommends a limit of one hour of screen time because
parents are unable to think rationally?

I personally am a little skeptical that these studies have no confounding
factors, but I don't think it's fair to blame parents for what doctors,
researchers, and clickbait authors are saying.

~~~
superkuh
There's few groups more in the thrall of the irrational desires of parents
than the American Academy of Pediatrics.

~~~
satyrnein
I don't understand the incentives or mechanism here. Let's assume you are
correct, and parents irrationally fear screens (and many other things). Then
what, the AAP issues guidelines based on what parents already fear? Then they
conduct studies and what? Fudge the results? I'm having trouble connecting the
dots.

If it's anything like this, it still seems like doctors are more guilty than
parents. They're supposed to be the experts.

~~~
robbrown451
Here's a theory. The parents don't irrationally fear screens on their own, but
they are very susceptible to being told to fear them especially by a seemingly
credible source. Now that they fear them, they are grateful to the
organization that warned them. Grateful parents are key to funding.

Organizations (and doctors, as you note) have a real incentive to conveying to
parents things that parents subsequently find to be valuable, "action item"
information. In other words, they are biased toward making themselves seem
important.

I don't think they necessarily "fudge" the results, but they can certainly
avoid going out of their way to think of how such results might be biased
toward "useful data".

------
adamredwoods
> The review of 33 studies concluded reading from screens had a negative
> effect on reading performance as opposed to reading an actual book. Even
> stranger was that students had a more realistic assessment of their own
> skills when reading a paper document. This only held true for non-fiction
> reading material, leading the Hechinger Report to remark, “go ahead and read
> Jane Austen on a Kindle.”

So non-fiction screen time is bad?

It's studies like these that get parents like me to get all riled up but with
no answers. I should start a research that tests if too much media consumption
by parents leads to erratic child development.

~~~
lonelappde
This smells of p-hacking. Split along enough dimensions and one of them will
look barely significant under the wrong model.

------
mensetmanusman
5 kids here, ages 1-8, with the school aged ones at or near the top of their
class reading-wise.

Basic points on how we use technology: -totally disable the internet before
the age of 6 -find all the interesting ABC / Songs / etc. that are interesting
and download them locally (ssyoutube) -Always differentiate between the
activities, i.e. are they consuming, creating, or playing with content?

On the last point, it is interesting that the kids will sometimes not want to
play the iPad if they aren’t allowed to watch ‘shows’ Once it becomes another
toy, instead of an addictive consumer-driven device, it gets used just like
the other things in the house.

Can answer questions if there are any>

~~~
dntbnmpls
Why did you have so many kids and so close together in age? Or are they
adopted?

Are you able to work or are you a stay at home mom?

If you work, does your company or government provide assistance/aid?

I hear people with 1 or 2 kids struggling, I don't think I've met any with 5
kids so young.

~~~
lonelappde
2 years between kids is quite common. Sometimes you get a multiple and
sometimes "the last one" isn't a "one".

------
birken
The full text of the study is behind a paywall [1], but from the abstract we
can see that:

\- It's 47 participants (out of 69 recruited)

\- The only other variables controlled for are household income and age

The study's conclusion itself says:

> The findings suggest further study is needed, particularly during the rapid
> early stages of brain development.

So we should all be interested in the results of that future study, but at
this point nobody can really make a strong claim one way or the other.

1: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-
abst...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-
abstract/2754101)

------
bcrosby95
I don't quite understand where people are finding the time to let their kids
watch over 1 hour of TV (much less read to them) each day.

My wife and I work a standard 8 hour day. Kids wake up at 700. We leave for
daycare/work by 800. Arrive at work by 9. Work until 6pm. Pick up kids. Get
home by 7pm. Prepare and eat dinner. Bedtime routine starts at 8pm.

This leaves zero hours of dedicated kid time during the work week.

~~~
polishdude20
I'm not the one to get between a man and his daily routine especially when it
comes to family so please take this as a curious question.

How bad would it be to move the kids bedtime one hour later and have an hour
or a half hour of reading time with them before bed?

~~~
zrail
Depends on the kid but my sample size of two says very bad. If they don’t get
at least 12 hours they’re a mess the next day and it starts a horrible cycle
of not enough rest leading to it being hard to sleep.

------
mcshicks
I raised my kids without cable or broadcast tv, and they had limited access to
computer games. However I did have a tv, later a digital projector and we
would watch vhs tapes and dvds. They had a tandy 102 they could play with as
much as they wanted. I think the problem is not so much screens, but a screen
activity without a defined beginning and end, and in isolation. I had a lot of
fun watching star trek, etc with my kids. Later as teenagers there was
streaming etc, and at that point well they are just like me. The only kind of
hard thing is when they felt kind of left out, like not knowing the shows
other kids were talking about, or the games etc. I know it's not a easy choice
for everyone to make, but at least for me I think it was a pretty good one. I
more or less grew up watching tv every night, and what can I say, I know the
lyrics to many tv sitcoms. It didn't wreck my life or anything, but it
certainly didn't help it.

------
satya71
"It's a small study" \-- likely to be dominated by noise rather than effects.

~~~
BurningFrog
There is also a selection effect where small studies with boring results don't
get articles written.

~~~
unishark
Absolutely it's called publication bias.

Also studies who's results challenge the prevailing bias are much less likely
to get published.

[https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)

------
sadness2
Our kids would definitely be worse off without screens. We don't have time to
give them their ideal levels and kinds stimulation, and screens are a tool
which helps their parents' sanity. Us, as their parents being driven insane
would adversely affect these children. One of them has special needs and the
other 2 crave constant input. Overall screens are the lesser evil, and they're
all doing just fine. It's all contextual and this article is nowhere near
holistic enough.

~~~
lonelappde
Why can't the two provide input for each other? How did our grandparents with
8 kids do it?

~~~
sadness2
Context is everything

------
o_p
Yeah and TV will make you blind and videogames will give you epilepsy.. I
heard so much nonsense when something new gets wide adoption, stop forcing the
old world into your kids

~~~
Minor49er
Do you think that raising a child in front of a TV is a good idea?

~~~
rootusrootus
Eh, in moderation it's fine. My kids get a couple hours of screen time a day,
maybe even a little more sometimes. Both are at the top of their respective
classes in school.

But I've also been careful to keep them aware of the consequences of their
various choices (screen time, junk food, etc) and they self-regulate pretty
effectively. Although my daughter is currently addicted to fantasy novels and
I may need to help her dial that back a little so she gets enough sleep at
night :).

------
freepor
It’s been obvious for years that the kids who are sitting silently through 3
hour weddings glued to their iPads are not developing any of the skills like
creating fun, making friends, or being disciplined on proper conduct. It’s
great for the parents though, but if you give a kid an iPad you should be
aware that you’re damaging their brain, the same way that ice cream damages
their health (that doesn’t mean kids should never have iPads or ice cream).

~~~
satyrnein
Letting your kid stare at an iPad for 3 hours at a wedding is damaging their
brains? This is a bold claim and requires evidence. The article is talking
about daily screen time, not the occasional one-off.

~~~
freepor
No, having a kid who you've never bothered to socialize because using the iPad
is easier is damaging their brains. My kids are much more disruptive at adult
social events than their iPad-addled peers, but 100x better-behaved than those
kids would be if you took away their iPads. Sadly, the expected standard of
behavior is tending towards the iPad zombies, it's mostly the older generation
who sees my kids' petty transgressions as "kids being kids."

------
jvanderbot
Yeah, but they're bad for my brain as an adult. Video games and Netflix occupy
90% of my free time, which I would rather spend on hobbies, family, or
exercise. But I am habituated.

~~~
lonelappde
Cancel Pause Netflix justbfor a month. It's super easy to go back if you don't
like it. Or make a gym-only rule.

------
aaron695
This article is absolutely incorrect.

Go to the source journal article (Not CNN, it also is blatantly incorrect), it
does not say what they claim.

What this article claims is phenomenal. Why would you trust parentology.com
with a discovery that would win a noble prize?

To me, if you trust this article and use it to justify "Screens Are Bad for
Young Brains" you clearly are not looking at the evidence. And that to me
means you are not thinking at a low level what's best for a child. That's bad
parenting.

------
mrfusion
How do they account for the correlation that kids on screens are the ones that
have less parental involvement?

------
sys_64738
They've been saying this since the computer revolution started back in 1976.

