
Is screen time good or bad? It’s not that simple - mrkuchbhi
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/14/turns-out-the-science-saying-screen-time-is-bad-isnt-science/
======
Sendotsh
"Screen time" != "Screen time".

That's my main problem with all this "screen time is bad" stuff.

There's a huge difference between a kid spending 2 hours playing Flappy Bird
and spending 2 hours playing with an educational app, or drawing/painting in
an app, or watching tutorials on YouTube.

It's like saying "time at the park is bad for you" because some kids go to the
park to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol.

Screen time isn't bad for kids. Parents not controlling what kids DO on the
screens is bad for kids. It's all just another convenient thing for parents to
point at and blame for their lazy parenting.

Moderate what your kids do, push them towards using screens and technology in
educational and beneficial ways that stimulate their imagination and
creativity, control the amount of time they spend sedentary, and teach them
that like all things in life, balance and variety are important.

(Parent of 2 kids, who get unlimited access to TV, game consoles, and a
tablet, and would much rather play Lego)

~~~
Pimpus
It's hard to generalize too much about screen time. It is almost universally
bad, especially for kids, and should be kept to a minimum. Gadgets nowadays
provide an unlimited stream of stimulation, novelty, and dopamine hits. No
child can resist that, which is why the "lesser evils" like education apps are
still "gamified" to have any chance of keeping a kid's attention. The result
is that kids from an early age are growing up addicted to dopamine and the
internet. It's not much different from fat kids already being addicted to junk
food from an early age, it's just not as visible -- and both situations will
be very difficult to change during the individual's life.

Really, you just have to spend some time with the current generation of
children to see how disastrous technology has been. Their brain chemistry
depends on constant outside stimulation, and anything else is boring.

Also, if you think you can effectively police what your kids do and see on the
internet, you are sorely mistaken.

~~~
intothemild
Whilst I agree it's hard to generalise and one shouldn't.

Now I'm a father of a 3 year old, I'm seeing differences in screen time with
other parents/kids.

There's two kinds of parents, ones that pay attention to what their kids are
doing, and those who don't.

We're almost all children of Boomers, who was raised with unfettered access to
Television. Our boomer parents allowed some of us unfettered access to the
early internet, video games, and television. Some of us were told to get
outside and play. I certainly remember that some of my friends had
restrictions on Games/TV/Etc, and some friends had no restrictions.

Most if not all of the fear mongering about Screen Time is coming from
Boomers, not Gen X/Y.

That said.. I can easily separate the two parent's when it comes to screen
time by telling them how bad letting their kids watch Youtube unmonitored is.
The parents who monitor what their kids do will agree with me, the parents who
don't monitor will disagree with me "Ohh its fine whatever".

The OP is right, the problem isn't Screen Time... it's content.

We have a rule in our house, no screen unless it's important, and if it should
be shared.. So if my wife gets a text, and we're all playing, she tells us "Oh
i got a text message from this person, I'm going to read it and reply". It
involves everyone.

If my daughter is doing something, we do it with her. All her apps are
educational and I've run them through my parents who are teachers with over
30+ years experience.

The problem is content, not screens.

Reality is those kids are going to grow up in a future where screens are
always around. We'd like to think we're teaching them that screens are OK, as
long as you include others in what you're doing.. So that my daughter doesn't
become anti-social.

~~~
Sendotsh
Couldn't have said it better myself. We have a strict list of apps and games
that are allowed, but they basically get unfettered access to those ones.
Nothing with ads or microtransactions, no mindless games, no YouTube at all
unless we scraped a specific channel with youtube-dl to filter the crap. They
have plenty of stuff to choose from and never get bored. Most the time they'd
rather go play outside in the cubby or with the Lego anyway.

------
harryf
The correct answer is we don’t know. In other words we rolled out a technology
and now we’re conducting a giant science experiment on ourselves where it’s
possible that the consequences are extremely harmful, such as producing a
generation that’s going to suffer from all kinds of mental and physical issues
through lack of exercise, insomnia and poor social skills. That compounded by
a medical industry that likes to throw drugs at symptoms rather than solve the
underlying causes.

It could go the other way of course and lead to a generation that’s smarter
and more capable than ever before, thanks to being exposed to far more
collective knowledge and wisdom than any before them.

Probably it will be some of both but to put it in context I think it’s always
good to remember radium water
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radithor))
as a cautionary tale of how blind faith in progress and technology can go
wrong.

~~~
mrmanner
While I agree that we should be cautious, this is more or less the same
arguments that where used against industrialization, cars, trains, children
reading books, movies, vaccines, etc?

------
xupybd
Well I think this depends on what you're measuring as the impact of screen
time.

There are some negative effects of screen time that are not in doubt. It leads
to a sedentary life style, this has negative impacts on fitness and health. It
also isn't great for your eyes to maintain the same focal distance for long
periods of time.

~~~
aiiane
The same is true for reading a book but you don't see people up in arms about
that.

~~~
crazynick4
I've never found myself unable to stop reading a book even when I knew I
should be doing something else. Like now. I should be getting some sleep but
instead I'm reading/commenting about screen time. I think, mobile devices
especially, are addictive in ways that prior media was just not. I often feel
the way I felt after a few months of being a regular smoker - not really
getting much pleasure from being online and knowing that I'm not really
learning anything useful, but not really able to stop either. (I should note I
did quit smoking entirely shortly after getting to that point though)

~~~
baddox
I have certainly had the same experience with a book.

~~~
Apocryphon
Yeah but how long does it take to read a book? Even if someone was binging on
War and Peace, or The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, one is addicted
only for a few weeks or months at most- the internet is infinite.

~~~
crazynick4
I guess the differentiating factor is the instant availability. You can go to
a library pick out one book, and unless it's exceptional you'll only be able
to read it for some amount of time before you feel like you need to do
something else. With the internet, the "something else" can still be the
internet.

And with a book, if you're truly binging on it, then youll be done in several
days at most for the longer books. And, chances are, you won't be going back
to the library for another book right away and, if you do, the next one
probably won't be as bingeworthy.

I guess I can see the analogy but it's still like comparing nicotine to
caffeine.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I guess I can see the analogy but it 's still like comparing nicotine to
> caffeine._

Nitpick, but nicotine != cigarettes, and nicotine alone isn't that (if at all)
habit-forming.

------
bstar77
I feel like I hit the sweet spot in life (I'm 42 now) to be able to appreciate
what computers can do for me while not getting trapped in the cycle of
dopamine craving content that's pushed on us now.

Back in 1987, to play games or do anything fun on a computer, you had to know
how to use the computer. That would lead you down a rathole of technical
questions that had the pay off of getting a game working, but also taught you
stuff that was really useful. Today's devices are all about instant
gratification, so kids have gotten into the habit of expecting that. I
struggle mightily with my 10 year old son now with him understanding that not
all things we do can have an immediately positive feedback loop. I don't want
him to loose interest in rewarding things just because their is a barrier that
needs to be overcome.

So my criticism of screen time is mainly in how our children (and adults)
choose to use their time. Binge watching videos on youtube about their
favorite game is not the same quality content as building a Raspberry Pie to
create an emulation station. Both are focused on gaming, but one teaches you
problem solving and hardware/software skills.

------
jesperlang
Not sure this analogy works but here goes...

Could you see it as what the car industry did for transportation, the tech
industry is doing for our mental infrastructure? Setting up a private car
infrastructure was a gigantic experiment with unforeseen (or were they
really?) consequences to pollution, noise, the way cities were built/grew and
so on. The initial idea was not much criticized, we have only been fine tuning
the technology (safer cars, electric cars, better roads, etc). And today we
are doing the same experiment but with our minds. And it's not going to
change, we're just going to fine tune it. When your products are
infrastructure you are safe. So screen/software makers don't really care about
the debate of screen time. It's a debate about how much time and what you do
on your screen and not so much how we should live our lives (we are already
living a lot of our lives through screens!).

------
apotheosis
Meta-analyses aren't science, either. They're hardly more than commentary as
it's very easy to interpret many studies in a particular way.

~~~
james_s_tayler
Out of curiosity how does one arrive at that cognitive veiwpoint? I can't seem
to find my way there.

If we assume it's true for arguments sake then you can't read a meta-analysis
of meta-analyses in order to reach that conclusion because such an act
wouldn't be deemed a legitimate source of information...

So how do you get there? What's the path to seeing things from that specific
angle?

------
boiltFrawgz
Correct. Screen Time is an Apple product, and an invention of marketing.

The reality is that human behavior is drastically modified by mobile devices,
the cloud and ubiquitous wireless broadband.

You couldn’t escape if you tried. The frogs are boiling.

