Do you think kids’ screen time should be limited? Do you think we should restrict television and computer games in the best interest of our children?
If you google “screen time”, you find articles saying how terrible TV and video games are for kids. Like this one about how too much screen time causes obesity and behavioral problems. Or how too much screen time will make you die young: Too Much TV, Screen Time May Mean Earlier Death.
Sounds pretty scary, eh? I don’t believe a word of it. We don’t limit our daughter’s screen time at all. In this post, I’ll explain why.
Why We Don’t Limit Screen Time
I was moved by this post today by Kelly the Kitchen Kop: My World Is Rocked (I Need Your Thoughts on Unschooling and Giving Kids Free Reign on Screen Time). Actually it was the comments on the post that made me very sad.
But before you go read Kelly’s article, let me give you the back story.
Getting Turned On to Unschooling
A couple weeks ago, my family and I attended the Adventures in Homeschooling conference (post coming soon). We had such a blast. It was my second time to go with Kate, but this time I brought my husband Seth and my inlaws, Ed and Nancy (both former schoolteachers, they can’t stop raving about the conference.)
At the conference, we got to hear Sandra Dodd speak. Sandra is the author of Sandra Dodd’s Big Book of Unschooling.
I’d heard about unschooling prior to the conference but I was skeptical. Deep down I thought unschooling was just a bunch of lazy parents who did not want to take the time and energy to properly homeschool their children. I thought these parents were just not strict enough to enforce bed times and schedules. I was pretty certain that unschooled kids would end up not properly educated.
Sandra Dodd changed my mind. My husband’s too. We were absolutely blown away by her lecture, and we left the conference, a copy of her book in hand (which is amazing — review coming soon), 150% committed to unschooling.
Some Arguments for Limiting Screen Time
Let’s talk about some of the arguments against unlimited screen time…
Obesity Is Caused By Excessive Screen Time
Let’s start with the argument that screen time makes you fat and unhealthy. This is a ridiculous argument.
Mark Twain, one of my heroes, wrote his books in bed. He wasn’t fat and he was perfectly healthy.
And there are lots of people who spend 12+ hours a day on computers who are not obese. Take Bill Gates, for example:
Not exactly fat, eh?
Some people want to grow up to be professional soccer players. Others (like me) enjoy reading and writing and playing on computers.
And just because you feel compelled to spend a lot of time lying around writing or reading or watching shows or playing games, that doesn’t mean you can’t get your share of exercise. When you feel like it.
I happen to like swimming. And I like to listen to audiobooks while I lift weights, garden or go for long walks. But please don’t put me on a soccer field — I’d rather have a root canal!
Books are Good; TV is Bad
I can hear you out there, saying, “But reading books and writing is good! Watching TV is bad!”
Who says?
Is The Sopranos a lesser artistic achievement than Shakespeare’s plays? Is The Simpsons less intellectually stimulating than reading short stories by Oscar Wilde? It should be noted that going to see plays by Shakespeare or Wilde were the equivalent of watching TV in that era.
I argue that good television is just as valid, just as enriching as good literature.
I know the negative comments will come in with this one. People will say, “Yes, but there are a lot of bad TV shows out there.” Well, sure there are. There are a lot of bad books out there, too.
When it comes to TV, there are lots of choices, many of them excellent. Sure, there are lots of bad choices, too. But isn’t that like anything? You can read Danielle Steel (sorry, Danielle) or you can read Shakespeare. Your choice. Just because there are a lot of bad TV shows doesn’t make TV bad. Just like the zillions of bad books don’t make reading bad.
And maybe if more of our very smart and creative kids spent more time watching TV, they’d move to Hollywood and make better TV shows.
Computers and TV Are a “Waste of Time”
Really? How much do you guys learn on a daily basis browsing the web? How many blogs and articles do you read? How many podcasts do you listen to?
How many TV shows and movies have inspired and delighted you and turned your entire life in a new direction? I can list hundreds of them.
Not only that, but TV and computers are a way to bond with others. Everyone’s always afraid that homeschoolers won’t be adequately “socialized”. Cut them off from TV and computers and I guarantee you, they will have a harder time fitting in in college, and will not be able to relate to fellow coworkers and clients in the workforce.
I’ve known friends who grew up in Europe and Asia. They really felt left out when bombarded by continuous media references when we were in college. They had no idea what The Brady Bunch was, or Gilligan’s Island. Same thing at my various jobs at digital ad agencies when we were all quoting Monty Python and The Simpsons.
Furthermore, if the 10,000 Hour Rule theory is correct (featured in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers: The Story of Success), the more time our kids spend on computers, the better — if in fact, it is computers that they love. If they love playing guitar, they should do that, as much as possible. If they love rock climbing, they should do that, ad infinitum.
And, by the way, who are we to judge? If your kid’s big dream is to be a world-famous author or an engineer or a game designer or a trumpet player — who are we to judge? Why is one thing better than another? Every child has a special gift that he or she brings the world. Who are we to judge what they should or shouldn’t be doing instead of that thing that they love?
They should do what it is they love as much and as often as possible because this is, according to the 10,000 Hour Rule, precisely what will lead them to greatness (not to mention true joy):
A common theme that appears throughout Outliers is the “10,000-Hour Rule”, based on a study by Anders Ericsson. Gladwell claims that greatness requires enormous time, using the source of The Beatles’ musical talents and Gates’ computer savvy as examples.
The Beatles performed live in Hamburg, Germany over 1,200 times from 1960 to 1964, amassing more than 10,000 hours of playing time, therefore meeting the 10,000-Hour Rule. Gladwell asserts that all of the time The Beatles spent performing shaped their talent, and quotes Beatles’ biographer Philip Norman as saying, “So by the time they returned to England from Hamburg, Germany, ‘they sounded like no one else. It was the making of them.’
Gates met the 10,000-Hour Rule when he gained access to a high school computer in 1968 at the age of 13, and spent 10,000 hours programming on it. (Source)
What If Playing Computer Games Makes You Smarter?
Watch this video about how video games can make you smarter — so fascinating! I had never even heard of the Flynn Effect.
It’s the “gamifying” mentality that inspired Kevin Richardson to “Speed Camera Lottery” — a brilliant idea of paying people to stay under the speed limit. Watch this video below; it’s very inspiring!
Computers: Where the Jobs Are
I read this next excerpt on a blog written by a CHEESESLAVE reader. I think it’s just brilliant. She’s talking about her son who already knows several programming languages — and he’s not even 10 years old. They’re an unschooling family and they do not limit screen time.
I found a book for kids on computer programming, called Hello World: Computer Programming for Kids and Other Beginners. He had been expressing more interest in computer programming, so I purchased it. The recommended age was for 10+, but I knew from personal experience that kids as young as 8 years old could learn computer programming (I had learned BASIC at that age). He devoured the book. He was ripping out programs left and right. He was obsessed. When he finished with that book, he designed and wrote his own virtual pet program. Then, he announced that he wanted to learn HTML, so that’s when we started getting the Head First books published by O’Reilly. He has gone through them in this order: HTML & CSS, PHP & MySQL, Object Oriented Analysis & Design, Javascript (at which point he announced that he needed to learn HTML5, so I got him a more ‘grown-up’ resource book), Ajax, Design Patterns, and then Java. He was able to discuss some problems he was having with a PHP design on the phone with his uncle, hang up the phone, and fix his problem within 15 minutes, much to the amazement of his uncle and his parents! Just a few months ago, he helped his father design a graphical user interface (GUI) to help control and display images from an array of 14 digital cameras. Source
Meanwhile, check out this article from Forbes about how Silicon Valley is where are the jobs are:
With 9% unemployment continuing to make headlines throughout the country, the current job landscape shows few signs of improvement. And while the rest of the nation wonders when the hemorrhaging will end, Silicon Valley is bucking this economic trend… According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, economic growth in the San Jose-Santa Clara-Sunnyvale area grew 13.4% to $168.5 billion compared to overall U.S. GDP growth of 2.6% last year. Unemployment in Silicon Valley has fallen below the national average over the past year from 11% to 8.5%, with April experiencing the biggest drop in unemployment in more than two years. Most importantly, companies based in Silicon Valley are hiring at a fast clip; engineer recruitment fueling much of this resurgence and recovery.
Silicon Valley is currently in the midst of a talent war for engineers and IT professionals where companies are sparing no expense to lure some of the brightest minds to join their ranks. Top paid engineers at some of the most venerable companies in the Valley like Google, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter can expect to earn an average salary of between $125,000 and $180,000 annually. Source: Forbes
So Why Are We Limiting Screen Time?
What would have happened if Apple founder Steve Jobs’ parents had told him to stop tinkering in the garage with co-founder Steve Wozniak? What if they had said, “You need to stop wasting time and get outside and play.”
What if Mark Zuckerberg’s parents had limited his computer time and told him he couldn’t learn BASIC in middle school? How many thousands of hours do you think Zuckerberg “wasted” in front of a screen prior to launching Facebook in college?
What if Aaron Sorkin’s folks had discouraged his interest in drama and acting? What if Lorne Michaels had been told that TV was a waste of time?
If we restrict our kids’ computer and TV time, maybe we’ll feel better in the short term, knowing that they are spending more time riding bikes and soaking up vitamin D. Maybe they’ll also never end up writing for The Simpsons or winning an Emmy or designing computer games or making $100K+ in Silicon Valley or starting a multi-billion dollar computer company.
I guess there are always jobs at Taco Bell.
Read More About Not Limiting Screen Time
Want to read more on this topic? Check out Sandra Dodd’s website: http://sandradodd.com/screentime You can also order her book here: Sandra Dodd’s Big Book of Unschooling.
Do You Limit Screen Time?
What say you? Do you limit screen time, yes or no? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
{ 372 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
All balance and moderation. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. I am against screen time 24/7 as well as no screen time.
While other forms of screen time are not, tv watching in most forms is a passive mental activity. Reading requires the brain to work and create.
I’ve also noticed that when my children spend more then about 30 minutes watching TV (even educational tv) their behavior and attitudes suffer.
(not totally related, but I’m surprised you would put super vaccine enforcer Gates in a category to emulate.)
When we also talk about earthing and the balance that we need to get for health and rest, it takes a whole lot of counter exposure if you weren’t to limit screen time.
I think we probably have different core beliefs in parenting (I highly value my 3 and 5 year olds opinions but that doesn’t mean they are going to make the decisions on their tv exposure.) I was very surprised as well, to see that you also use a classical approach to education in your homeschool. this is from the book The Core, by Leigh A. Bortins.
“A classical education would embrace the efficiency of new technologies as they offer opportunities for individualized instruction, but would reject parallel monologue as a good form of education. Both factory and computer education rob a child of the the need to think and replace loving caring mentors with a machine or a system. The classical model emphasizes that learning feeds the soul and edifies the person rather than producing employees to work an assembly line. the goal of classical education is to instill wisdom and virtue in people. We see learning as a continued conversation that humankind has been engaged in for centuries and we are concerned that industrialization and technologies reduce contact and context between children and their elders.” (she is speaking more to computers as and end all in education, but i believe it still speaks to this situation)
Time to specialize in an interest and turn it into an expertise is something that homeschooling affords us, thankfully. However I love when Leigh says this: ” I’m not suggesting we ignore our children’s gifts in offering them a broad education. Rather, i’m advocating that a classical education provides the scope needed to apply their strengths to a wide range of tasks….As a parent, i need to give my children an expansive vision of their opportunities. ” … which I think is difficult to do if they are calling the shots on what they do, when they do it, in regards to screen time.
I really respect your comment guidelines of no personal attacks or insults etc.
I do think it’s a little but counterproductive when the last line of your post implies that those who disagree with you and do limit their children’s screen time are dooming them to a life of dead end fast food jobs. A bit insulting and people will have a hard time not taking a defensive attitude.
@Elise
I do think it’s a little but counterproductive when the last line of your post implies that those who disagree with you and do limit their children’s screen time are dooming them to a life of dead end fast food jobs. A bit insulting and people will have a hard time not taking a defensive attitude.
I didn’t say that unless we give unlimited screen time, kids are “doomed” to fast food jobs.
Sorry if you feel that is insulting to you. Sometimes I write things that are controversial and, yes, it is meant to shake people up.
I wrote that because this is what I feel: There are so many people out there complaining that they cannot get jobs. They complain about unemployment. And yet so many are behind the times when it comes to computers and technology.
Ride the horse in the direction its going.
@Elise
While other forms of screen time are not, tv watching in most forms is a passive mental activity. Reading requires the brain to work and create.
Please read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24TV.html
I’ve also noticed that when my children spend more then about 30 minutes watching TV (even educational tv) their behavior and attitudes suffer.
I’ve not had that experience.
(not totally related, but I’m surprised you would put super vaccine enforcer Gates in a category to emulate.)
Gates’ position on vaccines is immaterial to this argument. The argument is that it takes 10,000 hours to become successful at something. I am saying that I think kids should be able to spend as much time as they want following their passion(s).
When we also talk about earthing and the balance that we need to get for health and rest, it takes a whole lot of counter exposure if you weren’t to limit screen time.
I’ve said this elsewhere but the majority of EMF exposure we get is in bed while sleeping.
I think we probably have different core beliefs in parenting (I highly value my 3 and 5 year olds opinions but that doesn’t mean they are going to make the decisions on their tv exposure.)
Yes it sounds like we do.
I was very surprised as well, to see that you also use a classical approach to education in your homeschool. this is from the book The Core, by Leigh A. Bortins. “A classical education would embrace the efficiency of new technologies as they offer opportunities for individualized instruction, but would reject parallel monologue as a good form of education. Both factory and computer education rob a child of the the need to think and replace loving caring mentors with a machine or a system. The classical model emphasizes that learning feeds the soul and edifies the person rather than producing employees to work an assembly line. the goal of classical education is to instill wisdom and virtue in people.
I don’t believe in “instilling” anything in anyone.
The Latin root of the word education is “educare” which means “to draw out” or “bring forward”. It has nothing to do with “instilling” anything in anyone.
My goal in educating my daughter is to provide a variety of experiences and opportunities for her so that her passions are ignited. Then to assist her in finding ways to explore the things she wants to learn. If she wants to learn to become the best guitar player in the world and wants to spend 10,000 hours learning, so be it.
Same goes for any number of things from martial arts to computers to yes, watching TV. Believe it or not, there are academics who work in universities who do nothing but study TV and movies and write scholarly papers about it.
We see learning as a continued conversation that humankind has been engaged in for centuries and we are concerned that industrialization and technologies reduce contact and context between children and their elders.” (she is speaking more to computers as and end all in education, but i believe it still speaks to this situation)
Conversation has continued over centuries first orally, then through books and letters. Now it is being continued also on computers and on TV, in movies and on radio.
I disagree that “technologies reduce contact and context between children and their elders.” Does she provide evidence for that?
Time to specialize in an interest and turn it into an expertise is something that homeschooling affords us, thankfully. However I love when Leigh says this: ” I’m not suggesting we ignore our children’s gifts in offering them a broad education. Rather, i’m advocating that a classical education provides the scope needed to apply their strengths to a wide range of tasks….As a parent, i need to give my children an expansive vision of their opportunities. ” …
Agreed!
which I think is difficult to do if they are calling the shots on what they do, when they do it, in regards to screen time.
Why?
If your daughter wants to become the best guitar player in the world and wants to spend 10,000 hours learning to do it do you think it necessary for her to spend time learning her history timeline, scientific method, english grammar etc? I do.
How do our children know what they are passionate about if they don’t have the introduction to many things because they are watching 10,000 hours of tv?
that isn’t giving them an expansive vision of their opportunities or helping enable them to accomplish whatever they want in life.
If my daughter only wants to play dress up I just wont teach her to read or use the toilet? It just doesn’t seem functional or healthy. Yes, she may grow up to be a fashion designer, fashion editor or actress, but she will likely have poor reading skills and hygiene issues.
instill: bestow a quality on,2-have an emotional or cognitive impact upon, 3-fill, as with a certain quality
Is there no belief, trait, habit or passion that you care to instill in your daughter?
For instance, the importance of knowing what you are putting into your body and the way your body reacts to that substance is knowledge i want to instill into my children, whether they are particularly passionate about it or not.
Elise I agree with you on this. My children have grown up with a lot of TV. well maybe not a lot but average amounts for the typical American kid. I noticed several negative effects from TV that caused me to remove it. The behavior was an issue at our home also and given the choice between a book and a tv show the tv show would win every time. I recently replaced my tv with a book case and lots of art supplies- with no other choice, they are the most creative I have ever seen them be. hands down.
There is something very disturbing and unnatural about my children watching a lit up square box. It is mentally passive. I am so pleased to see that almost any time I go into the living room I see my kids deeply engaged in either books, imaginative play or with each other. we had immediate results in removing the tv and it has only been a week! I am amazed and thrilled! I personally was heavily convicted in a spiritual sense. I am a devout Christian and even the “good” shows disturbed me. It was just more access for worldy ideas presented to my children. I just couldn’t hang with it.
Now with all of that said, there are some great films and documentaries out there and we plan to implement them down the line on occasion. I also took their game consoles away – as it was a HUGE source of addiction. My kids would rather play games that do almost anything. I have one child that would be his pants long after being potty trained just because he didn’t want to stop his video game. I have kept ipad time for them in small increments and plan to let them use the computer as needed. But after studying the amish… I had a greater understanding as to why these new technological items can be so harmful. For us Christians it makes it easier for the enemy to enter into our family. There are lots of things online that children and teens should not be exposed to. they all over the web. it is scary. Computers, games, tv, ipads, ipods, iphones. etc etc. has caused a HUGE disconnect in today’s american family. I’ve seen it time and time again. I do think in moderation it can be useful and okay – just have to be SUPER diligent what they are exposed to.
and as for books… WOW there is NOTHING richer and more adventurous than a good book. I use the robinson curriculum in our home school and it exposed them to great classic literature. I also plan to implement other styles but the focus for us is BOOKS, BOOKS AND MORE BOOKS… art… BIBLE. nature. I am very old timey at heart and really am trying to grasp to the last bit of the traditional old ways, of which TV wasn’t apart of. I wish sooo much that I would have not been exposed to TV. I watched countless hours of TV as a child. I was also fed junk so i did get fat. My parents didn’t spend quality time with us as much I had NO exposure to good literature and I can tell with my unlimited screen time. I suffered. BIG TIME.
That is funny, people are not unemployed because they are “behind the times”. It is due to the economy. I am pretty certain if the “unemployed’s” parents let them have unlimited screen time as a child they would still be unemployed. Actually I’m pretty certain most of the long term unemployed would fall in that category. Ok, that’s a guess but only based on individuals I’ve seen. I think you might be grasping at straws now.
“A” for effort!
“That is funny, people are not unemployed because they are “behind the times”. It is due to the economy.”
Not to get off track, but I’m sorry, but I don’t buy this. All of the unemployed people I know are either 1) Completely unwilling to take any job that doesn’t meet a very strict set of parameters or 2) Completely unwilling to learn a new skill to move into a different field. I have heard so many people complain about the “economy”; meanwhile, they are just wishing and hoping for their dream job to drop into their lap, while they refuse to change anything about their skillset.
I was saying the economy caused the unemployment and it definetley did. I’m from Michigan, it was bad. There are some people out there (myself included) who were laid off and in the position to wait for a perfect (or close to) opportunity. I have great past exp and skills, I was not going to change my career path that would not have been smart. I have three kids and had to make sure it was worth taking because of the nanny and etc. In my case I was lucky enough to be able to wait for the right opportunity. That is not to say I didn’t work my butt off to find my current job, which is my dream job!!
Needless to say everyone is in a different boat!
I guess my husband just doesn’t fit your mold, J. He’s been looking for a job for 3 2/3 years now. He’s kept up-to-date with his field and worked several temp jobs/contract jobs in his field, but hasn’t been able to find a permanent job. He’s applied for all kinds of jobs, including manual labor. He was actually turned down for a janitorial job because he doesn’t have “3 or more years using floor waxer model AJ3007″–really??? He has a degree and was the head of a department more than once, and you think he can’t turn on a floor waxer?? Stupid HR people are one big reason for the number of people currently unemployed, if you ask me!
He also underwent 2 months of training for a job, only to have the company fold.
There have been something like anywhere from 200 to 400 people applying for any one job opening for the last 4 years now. Don’t fall into the self-satisfied lie of assuming the unemployed are all lazy bums who are no different than generational welfare recipients. My husband was head of his department when he was “downsized”. He was cut simply because he made the most money, no other reason. The same stupid VP also decided to let the *entire* HR staff go, so that almost immediately they got in trouble with our state’s Workforce division.
Also consider that if you’ve been unable to find a job for several years, *you can’t afford* to go back to school to get a different degree. You may very well be homeless by then. Don’t think it couldn’t happen to you!
@Tracey R
He was actually turned down for a janitorial job because he doesn’t have “3 or more years using floor waxer model AJ3007″–really???
That is so crazy and so frustrating!
What field is your husband in?
He’s a graphic designer/art director/web designer. It *is* crazy. I used to work in HR, and what’s happening is that not only is there a scarcity of jobs, most HR departments anymore use one of dozens of keyword programs to sort applicants, instead of using their brains. This is a particular problem for more unique jobs. What one person might describe as “whifnutting” another person might describe as “perchfangling”, and they’re both the same thing. But letting the program sort out one keyword means that only applicants who used that particular keyword will be considered, even if they did exactly what’s being looked for. And because there are lots of programs, and because some of the HR people might just not have a high degree of Googlefu, what’s being searched for might actually zero in on a tiny portion of applicants who, for whatever reason, chose to use that keyword on their resume. There’s no real way for the applicant to figure out the keywords, so it’s very much a crap shoot.
@Tracey R
That is a really valid point about the keywords!
Keywords are crazy. We’ve been ramping up with Google AdSense as well as SEO and the whole keyword thing is nuts. You have to spend HOURS and HOURS drilling down on keywords to make your ad campaigns work and your website show up in search engines.
Does he have a good recruiter? I know a really good one — she is in Colorado and a friend of mine (actually I know a number of recruiters but this one is really good). If you email me his resume, I can forward it to her. annmarie@realfoodmedia.com
I never referred to anyone as “lazy.” Unwilling to adapt is a better descriptor for the kind of attitude I’ve seen among many of the unemployed individuals I know. I don’t have a “mold”; I can only speak from what I’ve witnessed. With so many free/inexpensive online resources available now, one doesn’t need to get a degree from an expensive school in order to learn a new technology or skill — just patience and perseverance. That actually gets to the heart of the whole conversation on this thread. Best of luck to you & your husband.
It’s sad you know people that won’t adapt. I know a lot of people simply grow less flexible in all ways as they age, and the stress of being unemployed can make it more difficult as well. There’s also the factor that a person is much more likely to get a job that pays well enough to meet his/her obligations in a field s/he has experience in, instead of a field where it means starting all over again at the bottom. Even as a freelancer, my husband makes better money per hour (although not enough hours!) than he did when he was employed. As he told his dad recently “I would accept a job at the gas station if they’d hire me, but they pay minimum wage, and just one design job makes me what I’d make there in weeks.”
@Tracey R
I would love to see his portfolio. We are always looking for good graphic designers!
This just in from Forbes:
According to the Economic Policy Institute, almost 30% of American workers are expected to hold low-wage jobs – defined as earnings at or below the poverty line to support a family of four – in 2020. This number will remain virtually unchanged from 2010. Given that roughly 50% of recent college grads are unemployed or underemployed and those who do work are much more likely to hold these types of jobs, this is a particular grim prospect for young workers hoping to leave these positions behind for greener career pastures.
“Americans raised at the top and bottom of the income ladder are likely to remain there themselves as adults. Forty-three percent of those who start in the bottom are stuck there as adults, and 70 percent remain below the middle quintile. Only 4 percent of adults raised in the bottom make it all the way to the top, showing that the “rags-to-riches” story is more often found in Hollywood than in reality.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/08/30/careers-are-dead-welcome-to-your-low-wage-temp-work-future/
When I was in college, I had to make a decision about what my major was going to be. I was torn between English and Radio/TV/Film. I decided to go with Radio/TV/Film with a specialization in New Media (interactive/digital media) because I had a feeling that there would be more jobs.
Instead of reading Beowulf, I watched The Simpsons and played video games and wrote papers about these things, and I designed interactive CD-Roms (this was before people were building websites). I also did an internship coding a CD-Rom for the Texas Film Institute.
Now, keep in mind, I did also study Shakespeare — that was one of my favorite classes. I read a TON of plays in summer school. I also made an A+ in Astronomy.
A month before I graduated, I drove to Silicon Valley and had 2 job offers within 1 week. I accepted one and was off to the races.
I went back to Austin a couple weeks later for graduation and ran into many friends who were stunned that I had found a job so fast. They were looking at working at Starbucks. No joke. My job paid me 2-3 times what my fellow students were making, and 2 years and 2 jobs later, I was making six figures at an internet start-up.
And PS: I never would have gotten into the ACTLab (Advanced Commnications Technology Lab) in college if I hadn’t spent thousands of hours playing around on computers as a teenager.
I would not have even considered it or been drawn to it. Back then online/digital media was very fringe. And I definitely would not have had the knowledge to get into the program. Thankfully my parents did not set limits on screen time.
“technologies reduce contact and context between children and their elders.”
What’s amusing is that the exact same criticisms have been widely leveled at just about *every* technological development in history. Socrates said that writing would diminish humanity’s brain power/memory. The printing press was criticized for its potential to distribute controversial or “incorrect” information to the masses sans proper authority, proving ruinous to intellectual learning. The telephone was criticized because it would destroy letter-writing. The mechanized weaving loom would destroy fine textiles. And on and on and on; there are countless examples of Neo-Luddite claims that the newest form of technology will lead us all into a dark age. Though, I’m sure the sky is really falling this time, because it’s different now. It always is!
@J
Well said!
@J
I was so interested in your comment that it inspired me to do a little Googling…
Writing:
Plato (quoting Socrates) expressed the fear that the emerging technology of writing would destroy the rich oral literacy that was central to his culture. Writing would reduce the need for memory and attentive listening. It would give learners the appearance of wisdom by aiding rapid recall of information and facts without requiring internalization of such wisdom. This sort of “superficial” learner would inevitably be less literate. Source
Printing press:
As in the case of many inventions, there was immediate opposition. The new printing system was seen as something that would undermine the existing political and religious order. Source
Telegraph:
From the beginning, the telegraph worried some intellectuals, who fretted that the faster dissemination of information by cable would somehow dilute the quality of public discourse, to say nothing of their own influence. Henry David Thoreau, in Walden, set the tone. “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas,” he wrote, “but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” Source
Printing press:
As in the case of many inventions, there was immediate opposition. The new printing system was seen as something that would undermine the existing political and religious order. Source
Interestingly enough, the printing press led pretty directly to the reformation, and a great deal of political and religious upheaval was the result. In fact, you could probably credit The Us as an independent nation to the writings that the printing press allowed to be easily disseminated.
There is a huge difference between the story you just shared and allowing your child to watch Spongebob all day. I can tell you firsthand that that DOES lead to lazy fat kids who have no goals or attention span. So yes, I will be limiting screen time with my baby. Not limiting learning and passion, but limiting pointless, useless shows. Watching TV and movies is not the same as reading by the way, reading requires you to use your imagination to visually create the world you’re reading about (even Danielle). Most TV doesn’t require the same mental effort.
Having a daughter and 2 sons as well as 7 nieces and 5 nephews I can say that girls are inherently better than boys at self modulating their screen time probably because they aren’t nearly as visual as boys. That being said, excessive screen time as with excessive anything should be regulated accordingly. Would you just set a candy bowl out and let your child eat as much as she wanted? A TV sitting there with a ready remote is the same thing. It’s candy for the eyes. I think if you had a son and could see all the drooling, monosyllabic responding, sleep until noon, usually overweight, completely inactive computer/video game nerds I’ve come across who have no concept of social interaction (nor do they want to), you would quickly rethink your position.
I read an article a few months back that Andy Murray, the tennis star from Great Britain, was dumped by his girlfriend because he was such a “loser” and played video games nonstop when not playing tennis and had no concept of interacting and being a normal partner in a relationship. You have to wonder if he had no boundaries with his screen time as a child. My bet would be that yes, it was a boundary-less home that did not teach that excessive behavior with anything is unhealthy.
It could also be that he isn’t a very social person, didn’t find his girlfriend that interesting or was extremely worn out all the time from being a FREAKING TENNIS STAR! I don’t think we can make blanket assumptions that him playing video games all day came from no boundaries at home.
Television is not inherently bad. The computer is not inherently bad just as books, sports, jump ropes and talking on the phone are not inherently bad. I limit my daughter only in the way I try and limit myself. If I were to have my way, I would read, run, play my with my computer, snuggle up with my human and dog family and then go to sleep. As long as she gets done the things that need done, including active play, she can do whatever acceptable activity she wants with free time. Some days its lots of TV. Some days its Barbie dolls and legos.
Dear Ann Marie,
Firstly, I defend your right to do as you see fit for your child and family according to your individual view of the world and the path you have trodden that leads you to your opinions and beliefs, but I exert my right to respectfully disagree and to say that this article leaves me with a feeling of unease. I don’t see this as a black and white issue, nor do I see screens as necessarily ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – it’s a complex issue with multiple considerations and each must find their own truth within – but it’s the word ‘unlimited’ that I feel uncomfortable about. The fundamental reasons why I disagree with allowing unlimited screen time have already been well-articulated here in the comments and I would do little to restate them. However, to perhaps add a different perspective (I haven’t read all the comments) I wanted to mention that I am struck by what I interpret as the emphasis on the accumulation of vast amounts of money by a few individuals, mostly men, as the measure of the success of a person’s life, and thus used as a reason to not restrict screen time and influence, especially in younger children. There’s a tenuous link between allowing a child to engage in unlimited screen time and the risks this might feasibly pose to overall, life long health and well being, and the ridiculously improbable chance they may become the next Bill Gates, for example. (An unfortunate one as we hear of him using those coveted billions and celebrated, apparent success to promote Monsanto’s GMOs and mass vaccination. Forgive the flippant tone, but maybe all that screen time finally did addle his brain and judgement?) I draw no conclusions, but perhaps Steve Jobs’ eventually fatal illness was partially contributed to by the amounts of electromagnetic radiation exposure he might have been subjected to over his life time of unlimited screen time? Would he take back all his screen time ‘success’ and vast cultural influence in exchange for less screen time and more time in health with his family and loved ones? Maybe not, maybe so. I guess we’ll never know for sure what he would think about that (but I haven’t read his biography).
Anyway, I’m just throwing ideas and opinions around. Please keep up the good work at shaking up energy, provoking productive discussion and encouraging us to think about why we feel the way we do and the choices we make. This has been a beneficial use of (limited) screen time indeed! I’m off to do some yoga.
Peace and Namaste,
Charlotte.
I agree with Elise that your last comment could be insulting. There are many jobs that do not involve writing tv shows or designing computer games. A child with limited screen time will not have a 100% chance of ending up working at Taco Bell. What about nurses, lawyers, teachers, politicians, pastors, salesmen, doctors? And I don’t think a person needs to be able to quote Monty Python or The Simpsons to be socially accepted. Some people have interests beyond television and computers, and I think you need to respect that. This post came off as very harsh overall toward anyone who has any kind of reservations about tv or computer time.
It sounded more like a snarky comment to get people riled up than a comment on staying up with the times. so, it’s likely that people will say what they feel in the same tone. I find a way different connection of tv time/video games & unemployment than you seem to have. sure there are 60 year old ppl who don’t have computer skills…. and there are tons of lazy 20′s who play games all day in their parents basement. Maybe the two work at Tbell together.
Did you have any response to the meat of my comment?
@Elise
Sorry I’m very busy these days. I just responded to your other comment
I have so many thoughts about this article, but I did want to address that comment about the Simpson’s and Monty Python. Depending on the kind of company you keep, you may find yourself in discussions with others about all kinds of things and I find that in my world…The Simpsons and Monty Python are never part of the conversation. In my world, it is the literary scene that I feel the most pressure to keep up with, but luckily…I enjoy keeping up with it. I did not go to the greatest of high schools and I don’t remember having reading lists as did many of my peers. When conversation has come up about traditional literary classics that I did not read in school as many of my peer group did…I feel very out of the loop. I have made a real point as an adult to catch myself up on those missed classics as well as newer meaningful literature. My kids do have very limited tv exposure and they are different from many of their peers, but we tend to seek out friendships with those who make sense to us….just as we all do. I can tell you that my son seems to have an imagination that knows no boundaries and I most definitely think it has to do with the limited screen time. I also think that kids that are allowed to develop these free unburdened imaginations are the very ones to be super creators as were Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Steve Jobs did not have the Internet or unlimited tv as a child. I am 39 and when I was growing up we didn’t have the option of being exposed to hours and hours of tv and computer because there were like 3 channels available and kid shows were on only briefly in the morning and after school and obviously….no one had a computer…no one had a cell phone. We had to make our own entertainment…as did Steve Jobs and the like. This is what makes for a creative and ingenious mind. Having computer skills is not some great feat. Anyone can take some courses and learn it pretty quickly (trust me…I had zero computer skills even coming out of college because computer labs were fairly new on campus and used primarily just for word processing and laptops did not exist. I have made my way though;). The real gift for children who are not bombarded by constant media is the ability to use their mind without bounds.
I think you are missing here something important, and it is BALANCE. I can tell you from experience, my brother loves video games and computer programming (and he is good at it) BUT it is not ok when he would rather spend time in the computer than go out with friends, or have a family dinner or when he doesn’t clean his room, etc. And it is important to limit time, not just in TV and computer, in EVERYTHING. For example, If someone is 24/7 reading, and doesn’t do anything else it is NOT OK. If someone likes an activity and likes to spend a lot of time in it is ok, but if it is the only thing he does, if he can find pleasure in anything else, if it causes problems in other areas of his life, it is NOT OK.
I used to limit screen time, when my first son was younger, because I had learned in early childhood education classes that screen time set sedentary neural pathways in the brain and didn’t constitute true learning – while I *do* agree that putting your baby in front of Baby Einstein dvd’s is not likely to teach babies how to read or how to speak spanish, and should not replace human interaction and multi-sensory learning opportunities (your baby will learn a lot more about “apple” by tasting/smelling/handling/seeing a real apple than seeing one up on a screen), I no longer limit my sons’ screen time or worry that they’re being over-exposed. Perfect illustration of why I no longer worry about it: My husband and my two sons (2.5 and 10 months) are currently seated in front of the tv (with dinosaur train playing on netflix) building a giant wall with duplo blocks. Yes, my 10-month old is building with duplo blocks, in spite of being exposed to 3+ hours a day (often much more) of screen time since he was about 2 months old. He’s also already walking, engages in conversational babble, and spends most of the day exploring the house and trying to play with his older brother’s toys. Clearly it hasn’t inhibited his development the way I was taught it would. My 2.5 yr old likes to browse you tube on my phone, and finds videos that “teach” colors and numbers and letters, and he’s actually learned from them on his own. I used to consider that “lesser” learning, than say, if he’d learned it by playing with paints (which he also does from time to time) – but I’ve totally gotten over that kind of silly thinking. Why is *his* way of learning colors (videos on you tube), and *my* way of learning colors (playing with paint and plants/flowers/craft materials) less valuable? He learned it! And *now* he’ll talk about colors in other situations as well (like on a walk looking at flowers and plants, or when we paint or draw).
My personal preference is less tv. I can’t stand most shows, or tv advertising, but my sons love movies/shows, so we compromise by not having cable. We stream shows the boys might find interesting, and watch movies. We also get outside and play at the park when we’re inclined, and go for walks, go to play groups, etc.
(But I was a sucker for Meerkat manor, which used to play on animal planet, before I had kids…)
I also think that many people here are assuming that given the chance, a child *will* chose to spend 24/7 in front of the tv/comp/video games for the rest of their lives. If YOU understand that the world has so much more to offer, why do you assume your children don’t? And IF they don’t, that is certainly *not* their fault. Why would you penalize them by taking away what they do enjoy? It also sounds like people are worried about how the media controls people and their habits (I agree this is true for many americans). Do you think your children are not as smart as you? Do you think children don’t know when they are being manipulated? They may not understand it as clearly as you do yet, but maybe with the input of a loving, thoughtful adult, they will. Thoughtful children, like thoughtful adults, will probably see through the cheap manipulations we are exposed to through mainstream media, especially if they are also exposed to alternative viewpoints. And to the person who said reading requires people to use their brains to visualize – not all people do this. One of my best friends can’t visualize well as she reads – she loves reading, reads a ton, and then loves to watch the movie versions, because her powers of creating a rich, visual image in her head are limited. As a child she was allowed to watch a half hour of tv a night on school days, and an hour on non-school days, but she read constantly. So, limiting tv and reading lots did *not* improve her ability to visualize in her imagination. She also enjoys reading what most people consider “junk” and had a hard time with the more “thoughtful” literature I tried to get her into, because it was over her head. I was allowed limited tv time. I watched as much as I wanted, when I wanted, whatever I wanted – mostly disney movies, looney tones, and nickelodeon (as well as mel brooks movies and consequently, monty python. You’re really missing out if you’ve never watched monty python). I also did excellent in school, ran varsity cross country, then studied literature in college, and graduated with honors. So this idea that kids will suffer for watching too much tv is ludicrous. They suffer from being undervalued, undernurtured, and understimulated. They suffer from being over controlled.
sorry – that should read “I was allowed UNlimited tv time” – excuse the typo
@Lisa C
What a great comment!
I agree, cultural literacy is really important. Helping our kids to form ideas about TV and movies and computers and to critically analyze them is essential, and yet it is not taught in schools (until you get to college, and often not at all unless you are a Radio/TV/Film or Communications major). High school kids analyze novels, plays and poems, but they don’t get to analyze TV shows and movies and video games. Why not?
When my daughter gets old enough and if she shows interest, I look forward to Monty Python Marathons!
PS: My daughter at this very moment is watching one of her favorite shows, “Ruby Gloom”. She just asked me, “Mom, what does ‘exist’ mean?”
Most annoying among the many annoying things in this straw(man) house is
1 – The sanctimonius leap (yep, prolly misspelled that word ; ) that limitting a screen means “honey, I don’t trust you, and you should feel bad about yourself, and I think your choices suck.” God heavens, get over yourselves. Please.
2 – The oh so common hypocrisy of taking relativism to its logical conclusion, and with all the force of teh Ten Commandments saying inherently contradictory things like “Thou Shalt Not limit screen time — or set any limits whatsoever! — for children, because there are no inherint values, morals or principles.”
How ’bout just a scrap from the table, just ONE comment from the holier-than-though limitless-b/c-I-love-and-value-my-kids’-individuality-more-than-you crowd that shows a LITTLE humility when others say, “this approach completely bombed for us.”
Best,
Annie
Annie- why not just ask your kids what limiting screen time means to them? Don’t take anyone else’s word for it.
And, I think any form of removing limitations when a parent is uncomfortable doing so is likely to fail in that family. I was uncomfortable removing certain restrictions from my son (bedtime is the one that pops into my head)- and often found myself snapping at him when he wanted more than I was willing to give – creating bad feelings in us both- that approach could have “bombed for us”. But I examined what I was uncomfortable with (“he’ll never go to sleep if I don’t make him go to bed and I’ll never get sleep and be exhausted and crabby all the time” is what I was telling myself) – well, I let go of my assumptions and gave us the opportunity to prove them wrong. Lo and behold, my son goes to bed when he wants, yet he’s happy, well rested, I’m as well rested as a mother of two including a nursing baby will ever be – and we’re all doing just fine. I chose that route because it’s what I wanted – I WANTED harmony with my child. I wanted to change. Not because I think I’m better than parents who have set bedtimes for their kids, but because that is the path to happiness for my family. You are not a better parent than me because you limit your child and I am not a better parent than you because I don’t.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is, no scraps from my table, sorry. You’re not a dog (sorry dog lovers, dogs eat UNDER my table, not AT it). But you’re welcome to come help yourself to anything in my kitchen.
This really depends on the child. From personal experience “screen time” does need to be limited. If I let my 4.5 year old son sit in front of the computer (we don’t even have a TV) all day he probably would. In fact, his biggest excitement of our 12 hour international flights visiting relatives recently was that he could (and did) spend the entire time on his seat screen on the plan. SInce he was a baby, we had limited screen time for him, but due to moving and a lot of changes in schedule the past year he has spent more time in front of the computer watching shows/playing some games than usual. We have recently realized that he has become disinterested in doing things he used to like. He (and his mind) has basically become lazy. And like I said, this is from already limited screen time (the max would be a few hours on some days). Puzzles, legos, anything creative have all become “too hard” (his words) for him- things that he could do easily as a 3 year old. He doesn’t want to play/work on anything that requires critical thinking, although he is super smart. And this is just over the course of a year or so…and yes, it is from “screen time” because he’s constantly asking to “watch something” instead of any type of creative play (which we provide a plethora of opportunities here for him). We recently realized this and have had to cut out scren time completely- at least for now. We are starting Oak Meadow homeschool this year and one of their books describes it exactly. Essentially the “screen time” puts children in a different world- not the real world- and when they finish watching or playing whatever it is on the screen, the real world is not so interesting to them anymore. There is a disconnect on an emotional and physical level to the real world. That is exactly what has happened to our son. So while I personally think there is a lot of great, education programming and games out there and I think the internet is an amazing resource, you really, really have to be careful depending on the child. I never, ever imagined this sort of thing could happen to my son, but it has. And now we are basically having to pull him out of a rut, which is not easy at all. So while some children may be able to handle “unlimited” screen time and it possibly won’t affect them in any way (although i truly doubt that), it is very dangerous to allow unlimited screen time for, I would say, the vast majority of kids. It is a very complex topic and not black and white at all.
I totally agree with you, Amber. This describes my older son perfectly. I have always thought I’d never “make a big deal” out of screen time, but unfortunately it has become a really big deal in our home. For my older son, TV is associated with terrible mood swings, tantrums, whining, apathy and disconnecting from the real world. Some people are able to glide in and out of these realities, but many children (a lot of boys, I notice) have a hard time with this. I don’t want to control my kids or make them feel like TV or computer time is “bad” and at the same time, I also am not willing to let some inanimate object control them. My younger son, on the other hand, could care less about TV. He does not turn into a zombie and whine or throw tantrums after watching. Coincidentally, he also does not have the same digestive and sensory issues either. I’m thinking there is a connection.
Nicole, your older son sounds exactly like our son. What you’re describing is what we’re going through-especially the whining, apathy and disconnecting from the real world. At this point, we’ve had to completely “pull the plug”. Like I said, he is very smart, very social and you would have no reason to think that screen time would affect him so much. His personality is amazingly flexible (we’ve moved a lot, just recently internationally and we travel a lot, so he deals with a lot of different people, places etc and is as good as gold and quite a charmer in any new social situation and has no problem with breaks in routine which can happen). BUT when it comes to screen time it’s a different story. You are spot on when you say some kids can go from the “screen time” to other activities so smoothly. Our son can’t either…it is very difficult for him to make the transition once he is involved in a screen activity (and we’re talking watching Reading Rainbow on Youtube or playing a game on Nick Jr…nothing crazy). He doesn’t want to pull away once he is involved and then once we do pull him away (for a meal, some place we need to go, he’s been on for too long), his behavior is generally very bad and he will mope around and be completely disinterested in anything else. So for your older son, what do you do?
While I don’t necessarily have an opinion on how much screen time a child should have, I do think there is a big problem in the types of programming and electronic “toys” that are out there today. I feel a lot of TV shows and gadgets are not age appropriate for some children, and parents let their child engage in them. It’s not the screen time that is the issue- its the monitoring of what is going on in screen ( and I don’t mean Spongebob- that show is so funny, kids love it, I mean that a lot of shows are said to be for a specific age group, yet that program shows images and/or topics that are not meant for that specified age group).
On a related note, My cousin bought her two daughters ( ages 4 and 2 ) iPod Touches this past Christmas, saying they were ” more educational than any toys out there ” . Now, I know technology is moving fast, and more schools are incorporating the use of these gadgets in the curriculum , but if an iPod is more educational than a book or a puzzle, I feel like we are going in the wrong direction.
PS -Waldorf schools are a little odd for me too!
I think the iPod touches are very educational. Because they include games, puzzles PLUS books. You can put whatever you want on them. They are just a tool.
Here’s a little science to add to all of the opinions.
‘Brain Activity’ by Terrance A. Bastian
Low Alpha Waves
Low Alpha Waves: Causes: Radiant Light
“While watching television, the brain appears to slow to a halt, registering low alpha wave readings on the EEG. This is caused by the radiant light produced by cathode ray technology [CRT, LCDs also?] within the television set [increases serotonin levels?]. Even if you’re reading text on a television screen the brain registers low levels of activity. Once again, regardless of the content being presented, television essentially turns off your nervous system.”
Television: Opiate of the Masses
“Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which indicates torpid (almost comatose) [slow] rates of activity. Alpha brain waves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of consciousness. A high frequency alpha waves [sic] does not occur normally when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland’s research implies that watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall.
I should note that the goal of hypnotists is to induce slow brain wave states. Alpha waves are present during the ‘light hypnotic’ state used by hypno-therapists for suggestion therapy.”
Television: Opiate of the Masses
Telly Addicts
“Radiant light, the light of [CRT] cathode ray technology [LCD fluorescent backlights also emit light], produces a dramatic downscaling of all brain activity associated with high energy, alert, healthy, disequilibrium [the term disequilibrium is used here to describe the flexibility of brainwave states?]. Television and VDT [video display terminal] viewing take from the brain the best features of its highest non-passive functioning.
McLuhan Studies: Issue 3: Chaos and the Meaning of Electric Culture
· “Acoustic work, like composition from memory,
· Silent reading [should say ‘out loud’ instead of silent?], and
· Mental arithmetic
all require and induce the faster brain wave production.”
McLuhan Studies: Issue 3: Chaos and the Meaning of Electric Culture
“Literate activity,
· Reading,
· Writing and
· Talking carefully,
are activities that provide a sufficiently chaotic base to experience–that there is always the tendency for these activities to complexify [increase activity in the frontal lobes] further and speed up the brain.”
McLuhan Studies: Issue 3: Chaos and the Meaning of Electric Culture
“Activities such as
· Reading a televised text,
· Watching TV,
· Watching a televised interview,
are all noticeably downscale in the range of the slowest and least chaotic of brain wave activity (cf. Emery 627).”
McLuhan Studies: Issue 3: Chaos and the Meaning of Electric Culture
“The Emerys conclude, with impressive neuro-physiological evidence to back their claims concerning the function of Theta waves, that television is ‘a maladaptive technology,’ a technology that injures the health of the user. They set up a set of conditions showing the relationship between high Theta presence and low brain wave response in the situation of TV use…”
McLuhan Studies: Issue 3: Chaos and the Meaning of Electric Culture
This is definitely a hot topic among parents. When we first started our family, we said we would limit our children’s exposure to technology simply because it’s expensive. When our boys were just toddlers, we got rid of our tv. I think that was the best thing we’ve done for the kids. There was nothing educational on. And we noticed that our boys tended to get cranky once the tv was turned off after they had watched a show. Since we got rid of the tv, the attitudes are much easier to handle. We have a laptop that the boys can watch movies and play specific games on, but we do limit it. One movie a day and 15-30 minutes of educational games per day. Most days, though, we don’t play on it at all.
Unlimited time with the tv or computer is good if your child is into that and can keep a healthy attitude. It’s good if you’re willing to shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars a year to keep up to date. It’s good if they plan on making a career out of it. BUT… you knew this was coming, didn’t you? But, if the child is merely watching tv or playing games to waste time being idle, I don’t see that as healthy. Let’s face it, only a small percentage of folks who play games are going to be programmers someday. Only a small percentage of kids who watch endless movies are going to grow up to direct them.
I guess my opinion is that there’s no concrete way to address this. In rare cases, it’s good. For the rest, it’s not so good. I hope unlimited screen time earns you little geniuses.
This is so interesting to me. I am intrigued and will continue to research… thanks for the post!
I don’t know how you were to twist all the moral values and ethics around and write a whole essay about the negative things whitch kids are not supposed to do and encouraging them.
I personally restrict screen time. I’ve tried not doing it, and noticed my kids behavior rapidly deteriorate. They are 3 and 5. I’m keeping an open mind though and when they are a bit more mature, I can see maybe not restricting eventually. I wonder though, all those examples you mentioned, do you know for sure they had unlimited screen time in their youth? Unlimited screen time as an adult is not the same thing. But, on the whole, I think it’s just one more thing that may work for some families and not for others. For every study that says it’s bad, there’s probably another that says it’s good. We need to know ourselves and figure out what works. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject! It’s something I’ve personally wrestled with a lot.
Well, I home schooled forever and am done now but, my son was called lackadaisical because he was not doing paperwork or busywork as I called it. He had a hard time learning to read but caught up and beyond before 4th grade. He then had some small motor skill problems and still does but I put him in a computer class and his typing speed went way beyond mine. He had chemo which caused alot of this but no one would know by talking to him or seeing him. He still has horrible handwriting but then he’s studying to be and MD(Osteopath) and that’s the way they write isn’t it? haha The computer has never hurt him but I do like it off at night because of the light and sleep disconnection.
Go for it! You and your children will reap the consequences. I can’t take seriously anyone who actually holds up The Simpsons and Monty Python as anything but corruption. So, have at it!
A great example to contradict everything you have just written is Dr. Benjamin Carson – recent speaker at the prayer breakfast – and his brother. When his mom pulled him away from the screen and into books, he became a top student and is now a world renowned brain surgeon. He and is brother thought they could not live without TV – they managed and thrived because of it. Look up Gifted Hands on youtube.
What a relief to have someone else acknowledge how well this can work. I’ve always stayed silent on the topic, fearing my insistence on my children knowing and becoming themselves could be so easily twisted into some kind of off-the-deep-end hippie parenting or judgement of someone else’s choices (which, based on the comments so far, was perhaps a valid fear.) All of my children display intense creativity acting out things they’ve seen, and retain an amazing amount of information and skills from the types of shows they watch. The younger two have had incredible language based on observing the dialogue and vocabulary, particularly in interactive preschool shows. I always assumed I was a bad mom for not limiting their time, but I seem to have a whole house full of very polite, advanced, verbal, engaging, creative kids, who are active and social when not on their respective couches, so I guess so far it hasn’t destroyed us.
We switched from live TV to Roku a few years ago because I do like to limit advertising, and paying less than 15% of what we were once paying for the same great shows (IN ORDER) is nice.
It’s interesting, and sad, and frustrating… how so many parenting discussions get wrapped so quickly in insecurity and judgment. I wish people could just read something and move on if it didn’t strike them as relevant instead of needing to defend point by point why they don’t do exactly the same as the author, or elaborating on why the author’s choices for her family are misguided or likely to end badly or stupid, or – especially – leaving URL’s to websites that support an opposing point. It’s just TV. If my kid watches more than your kid, then to me, that means: my kid watches more than your kid. One of mine was severely PDD-NOS and now she’s 100% recovered, so maybe that makes me less worried about The Simpsons?
Admittedly, I do hate Spongebob though. I don’t allow it because it’s just too annoying.
Sorry, Amy. Read something and move on? It is the nature of blogs to invite comments. That’s why she wrote it. It’s why she has rules for commenting. It is also how we grow. Discussion. There are many things in life I was convinced to change – for the better – because I was willing to listen to differing opinions. Just like this blogger changed after not even considering “un-schooling” previously. Don’t complain about people commenting if they disagree. It doesn’t mean we don’t want differing opinions..
I don’t have a problem with disagreeing or new/different opinions. I don’t like the superiority or “here’s why I’m right and your wrong” that seems to creep into parenting blogs so easily. The whole point of parenting MY kids is that we do what works best for OUR family, so I don’t get why parents feel like they need to tell someone else that other choices – for a family they don’t even know – are inherently wrong. That’s different than respecting or learning from diversity.
Also, it’s both hilariously and tragically ironic that I expressed my dislike of people being told their subjective experience/opinions are wrong, and the comment I got was that my opinion/experience was wrong.
Amy, you’re a little sensitive. There was nothing in my post to indicate that anything you said was wrong. Opinion and experience are what they are. I simply encouraged you to read a blog, respond, learn from it and move on. There is no need to complain about how others respond. I thought your post had some good points, but you didn’t need to add instructions as to how the rest of us should be responding. People are people. Let the moderator take care of commenting.
We change and grow and I am sure this blogger knows that she changes and grows from what people post here – that’s why she does it. If no one ever disagreed or challenged another’s statements, we’d all be stagnant.
I have a 19 year old daughter who rarely had screen time limited as she got older (only as a consequence of poor school performance or rare bad behavior). This child of mine is currently sitting on the couch, laptop on the arm, and game system going as well. She stays up all hours of the night to watch “livestream” with her “friends”, most of whom she has never met. For MANY years, she had a passion for anime. There is a huge market for it and while I worried she would be a “starving artist”, I never once got in her way of pursuing her passion for it. I encouraged her to pursue voice acting or art in this genre. She is also a great fiction writer, again I encouraged and supported. And have gotten NOWHERE. And my once engaging, outgoing, social, chatterbox is now afraid to give our names to the hostess at Applebees so we can get a table on a busy Friday night. Oh, I forgot to mention that the engaging, outgoing, social butterfly existed when I DID limit screen time. And let’s NOT mention the meltdown she had when there was no internet access for 48 hours that had her threatening suicide because she lost her “connection” to her “world” and all the “people that understood her”. I also believe that MANY people can spend thousands of hours pursuing their passion and NEVER become good at it. The Beatles are a phenomenon because they had a gift and used the gift wisely. How many hundreds of little girls spend thousands of hours at the gym, but never make it to the Olympics? The people you mention – they are anomalies – they are few and far between. One of the key ingredients to any child’s success is intrinsic motivation – one element my daughter NEVER possessed….passion – yes….motivation – no. And if you put a child with no motivation in front of a screen for unlimited amount of time – you will end up with a child living in your basement mooching off you for the rest of their life because they never learned to survive in the real world. If a child is motivated to become something great, they will, no matter what limits you do or don’t put on them. But when a child lacks it, a lack of boundaries/limits can push them into a life of laziness because they have no self control or motivation.
It’s our duty as parents to teach children what responsible screen time looks like. I don’t believe for a second that limiting (a.k.a. guiding) my children’s time in front of the tube, or gaming, or even researching valuable information on the net, will have a negative consequence on them. What will they learn? That they have a parent who cares about their choices. They will learn to be in the present with real people. They will learn to set personal limits instead of instantly gratifying their desire to watch, game, read, chat, text, etc. on whatever screen is competing with their friends, and family for their attention. Children should have enough responsibility in their lives that it would necessitate setting limits. Responsibility and limits help children to feel secure and of value in the world and will help them to succeed now and as adults. Unschooling doesn’t mean abandoning a child to their own devices. They still need guidance, no matter what direction they choose to go in, even if it’s programing computers. Can screen time be beneficial? Sure. I just hope that any parent who notices negative effects of media free-for-all will recognize that it’s a problem and do something to fix it. There are enough adults who are addicted to screen time that we should be wary of allowing kids to fall into that catagory in the hopes that they will somehow make something valuable of it. The pull of electronic devices on people of all ages is incredible. How many times have I seen a child or adult choose zoning out of life with a game or TV show over interacting with another human being? Too many times to be comfortable with your philosophy.
Very well said Laura.
I’m not a mother yet, but I do feel strongly about limiting my future children’s access to TV, movies, video games, and the internet.
Thinking back to myself as a child, along with my siblings I watched hours and hours of TV as well played what seemed like endless Nintendo. I also read books voraciously and spent a lot of time out in nature. And it’s the books and nature that shaped me to be who I am. I can’t think of anything lasting that Nickelodeon or Super Mario inspired in me. In fact, around age 14 I realized that TV was more of a waste to me, and chose to avoid it entirely for the next year or so.
I want my kids to excel at things they love, and while screen time may assist in that, I think it is only beneficial in smaller doses and while closely monitored.
I will say that my parents turned off our TV when I was in 2nd grde, using it only for very occasional movies. It turned me into a reader. I wasn’t all that interested in reading for pleasure before that, but became a voracious reader of almost anything afterwards. My parents limiting/eliminating our TV had a hugely positive impact on my life, one I am grateful for decades later.
Hello Anne Marie, I haven’t been here in a bit, I remember when you wrote this and I was keeping up with most of the comments for a bit. Love the differing opinions. Anyway, really just saying hello and hoping you’re enjoying unschooling, we are in our 2nd year and love it. I find that the more time I spend with my children the more time I want to spend with them. Loving it!
Cheers!
Tanya
← Previous Comments
{ 2 trackbacks }