Comment by rspoerri a day ago
My 3 year old watched TV for the first time for 2 minutes in her life (it was hard hiding it from her in an airplane on an overhead screen) and I can tell that TV is generally bad for kids at that age.
Some commenters either:
1. Do not have children.
2. Have a strong support network.
3. Have their partner or professional handle most aspects of child raising and have a warped understanding of dealing with a precocious and active toddler.
It's great that some folks have kids that like books and keep themselves busy. It's not so great that their parents think that is the reality most parents enjoy.
5yo parent here. Agreed. And sometimes they just need to chill.
I agree with the overall sentiment. Too much screen time is bad. Kids need to get out and play, indoors or out. In our house, it's a lot of biking and playing with friends outside, Legos, Brio, Magnatiles, matchbox cars, or just crafts.
But sometimes they're frazzled, out of sorts, and would benefit from just being able to sit and chill.
So we'll put on something for him that we're comfortable with. Tumble Leaf, Blaze & The Monster Machines, Trash Truck, or the occasional Ghibli movie.
We do not give him a tablet or other portable device. He sits and watches on the couch, we set a expectation, and stick to that.
I think controlling the device is important. Keeping the screen as something we control and not something he carries around seems to allow us better control and helps him understand the limits in play. 90% of the time, we have no fuss.
And it's not bad. In moderation, TV can be just fine. Often it genuinely helps him soothe and relax (Especially if he's been really active and engaged all day), and as you said, helps us get something done. Two episodes of one of his favorite shows is great to help him unwind while we're making dinner.
But we keep time/episode limits as well, and that seems to keep things in balance along with the aforementioned things.
Daniel Tiger was a godsend when my kids were younger. They loved it, and the little jingles helped us get through some of those tricky parenting situations. They're easy to remember, and the kids immediately understood.
I'm still in the "it depends" denial, but I grew up in a different era, where there was only something on TV for a few hours a day. Half an hour or 45 minutes of stuff aimed at kids at 3 age cohorts, toddler stuff, Sesame Street, "youth news", and an educational / entertainment / sketch show called Klokhuis (apple core / clock house).
But that was once a day, during weekdays, and no re-runs. Watching and re-watching Sesame Street clips back to back is IMO just as brainrotty to kids as the other brainrot going on at the moment.
I'm very impressed by the range of shows available on DR (Danish broadcasting). Shows about emotion, social etiquette, animals, machines and other intrigue. We do limit time, use it to reward good behaviour, and use it to recuperate after a day at nursery. Each night the kids get a book, and we usually play music as we prepare and eat dinner.
I believe a balance of all mediums is healthy. I look forward to introducing video games to them.
In some European countries like Germany, there are recommendations by institutions like the Federal Center for the "Protection of Children and Young People from Harmful Media (BzKJ)" about TV time or screen time in general [0]:
- 0 to 3 years: Ideally, no screen time at all. If media is used, then only in very short intervals and not every day.
- 4 to 5 years: Up to half an hour of screen time per day.
- 6 to 9 years: Up to one hour of screen time per day.
- For older children aged 10 and above, it is advisable to agree on a weekly time allowance.
I would watch up to two hours of tv a day right after school. TV time was up to 5 o clock. Earlier ages had school close at 3:30. Later ages had school close at 2:30. It was a good stress buster. And after that it was homework. Sometimes we would go out and play instead.
I agree with the 6-9 years old tv time. It is about what we did. But the 4-5 years? I know all my friends learned the most from tv this way. I did not because we didn’t have cable. We watched pbs.
How can you tell? What's the thing that made you say "this is bad for her", and why is it not the same for you?
She was so focussed on it and started crying when we hid it after only a very short time. This is not normal a behaviour. This only happens with things that are very addictive (also for example sugar). I do understand that not everybody can do it like that, but if you can create such an environment it's much better for them (in my opinion).
My three year old would do the same thing if he was playing in his sandbox and I abruptly picked him up and carried him away from what he was doing though. In my experience managing transitions between activities is one of the most important things. If I let my him watch a video and I tell him "I'm going to turn off the TV when it ends", he just goes back to playing with his toys when it goes off.
Don't get me wrong, I think screen time can definitely be a problem. I just think it mostly comes down to whether or not the screen time is at the expense of something else more constructive.
Absolutely this. I think a problem arises when parents install their kid in front of the TV and use it as a childminder.
Mine just turned 3. She watches YouTube kids - navigates the TV just fine and makes her own choices. She’s also a dab hand at platformer games - I didn’t think I’d have someone to play Mario with just her.
But - and it’s a big but - she spends 95% of her time doing something else, be it exploring outdoors, playing with duplo/lego, art, looking at books, telling stories with her toys, whatever.
For her, TV and games are just another thing to do, and she picks them up and puts them down like anything else.
The other problem arises at the other end of the spectrum. For me, TV was verboten until I was at least 8 or 9 years old - and when I was finally allowed that forbidden fruit I gorged myself.
>> started crying when we hid it after only a very short time
I'd cry too if you showed me a bright colorful shiny fun new thing and then took it away after only two minutes.
Part of what you're seeing is the novelty. There does seem to be something about screens, but it's possible to have healthy screen habits as a young child. My 3 year old enjoyed a 25-minute episode of Wild Kratts on PBS Kids on our TV while we finished packing up for a trip to the aquarium today. No problems turning it off once the episode was over and it was time to go. It's not his first time watching TV though.
I agree, and the "not the first time" I think is key there. Setting expectations I think is crucial. For ours (5yo), we're clear about what he can watch and for how long. We control the device. "Two episodes before dinner" or so. Over time, he learns how this works. And we're not afraid to tell him that now isn't a good time for the TV.
It's not to say we never have any complaints over this, but when we do, it's rare and usually because something else is amiss (hungry, frazzled, tired).
But most instances it's like last night, where we were clear that we had time for two episodes of Tumble Leaf before dinner. At the end of the second one he announced "last one!" and got up off the couch as we picked up the remote.
My approach to these kinds of things is different: these are really important opportunities to teach moderation and to teach the social skills of learning to have fun things in moderation.
I think it's quite important to introduce these addictive things into their lives, in a way that teach how to enjoy them carefully and in small chunks.
Understanding of what is happening is often very limited. When I read books or talk to her, I sometimes use words that are unknown to her, she only started asking for the meaning of them recently (she just turned 3). So she will probably only understand 20%-30% even when she understands conversations quite well at home. She is still missing cultural context. She is only starting to understand the difference between a living and a stuffed animal.
In an animation movie somebody might hit somebody else, which appears funny to an adult. A child might just take this as normal behaviour and repeats it the next time she sees somebody and doesn't understand why it's not funny.
Understanding the real world is difficult enough for her.
I won't argue that it is a universal truth but it has played out the same for my kids and my friends groups kids.
They treat it like a drug and lose all emotional regulation. I don't believe all screen time is bad, but it is something you have to teach them to regulate and 3 year olds and younger are just bad at regulating emotion in general. Teaching them to do this is just part of parenting. One of the most important things we can teach our kids is that it is okay to be bored. In fact it is great to be bored sometimes.
On the other hand, being a parent is hard and keeping your sanity is important in order to be a good parent. So if it helps you be a better parent all other times, it could be worth it.
The issue is when screens are used to in place of parenting. Parents using it as a way to fuel their own screen addiction.
On the other hand, for me airplanes are a special case and all rules go out the window to help keep the kid calm.
Hard disagree with ‘great to be bored’ - being bored is one of the worst possible feelings, that you’re wasting your time doing nothing when there is almost certainly something you would rather be doing.
As a child I used to hate the feeling of boredom, knowing that I could be doing something I wanted to do. As an adult I am hardly ever bored, and it’s a strict improvement, never have I ever found myself wishing I could just go back to being bored.
Boredom is such a negative emotion that learning to manage it effectively becomes an essential life skill. Learning to set yourself up for success / be prepared required forethought to anticipate the possibility of boredom and come prepared to deal with it. Acting out on boredom is childish, learning to keep yourself occupied so you don’t become bored is mature.
> Hard disagree with ‘great to be bored’ - being bored is one of the worst possible feelings, that you’re wasting your time doing nothing when there is almost certainly something you would rather be doing.
You <---> The point
Being bored is what inspires a kid to daydream for themselves and/or get off their arse and try something new.
Being constantly "entertained" by a TV or fondle slab is an anathema to creativity and independent thought. For children and adults.
So really, boredom itself isn't what's good, it's actually used as something uncomfortable that encourages kids (or adults) to go find something interesting to alleviate the discomfort.
For the record, I've also told my daughter that "boredom is good for her", but this is clarifying my thinking on it.
There was a time people used think the same about books.
Books can also be harmful if abused. They can be used excessively as escapism. They can contain dangerous harmful messages and manipulation. They can be addictive just like anything else can. Content matters a lot, and anything that makes delivering content easy comes with the risk that it will deliver something harmful. Books, TV, and social media have all been used intentionally to spread harm and encourage addiction. Most adults have at least some chance of protecting themselves, but children don't have those defenses developed.
It's a good idea to be aware of every form of media children consume.
That's still consumption of images rather than participation in reality. Kids can absolutely read in excess as a form of escapism. Books are easier than dealing with real life when someone else does the thinking and problem solving for you. Certainly great for learning in moderation but you won't learn interpersonal skills or how to ride a bike just by reading about them.
I don't think there was. But even if so, there was a time people used to think the same about drinking antifreeze, too.
There absolutely was. "reading addiction" was a medical diagnosis in 18th/19th century Europe. And if you read some of the essays about negative effects of reading from this time, it's pretty striking how similar it is to modern views on TV. There was even a German term of that time "Leseseuche" which literally translates as "reading plague".
- Propylene Glycol -- Antifreeze that is also used as a food additive.
- Ethylene Glycol -- Antifreeze that is toxic.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/propylene-glycol#TOC_TI...
their vision is still developing and staring at a screen is not good for eye development.
it removes stimulation and interaction with the environment and replaces it with sedentary and no physical interactions.
While the exact reasons are not common knowledge, knowing TV is bad for toddlers is.
> their vision is still developing and staring at a screen is not good for eye development.
Is that true? The American Association of Pediatrics doesn't list that as a concern on their page "Health Effects Of Young Kids Being On Screens Too Long" (which is focused on children aged 2-11). Do you have a source I could review for that claim?
https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/media-and-children/cente...
---
(The AAP page about media recommendations for 0-2 also doesn't say anything about eye-development, but _does_ recommend entirely against screen-time for that age-group except for video conversations with people)
https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/media-and-children/cente...
to clarify, too much “near work” for the eyes is a risk for myopia. That includes reading books all day.
My point is, watching an educational tv program like PBS for 30 minutes in the evening will not be the cause for your child wearing glasses.
The biggest predictor of good vision from the scientific studies is lots of outdoor time. This is most important from ages 6 to 11.
https://www.myopiaprofile.com/articles/how-outdoor-time-infl...
It’s bro-science all the way down. What if your environment is a boring room?
not that guy, but it would cause our kids to completely emotionally deregulate, and become fixated on the TV for a while.
and most TV is not great for people. there is a reason depression and anxiety correlate with TV time
My kids never had tablets or individual access to screens and yet we have tv and movies and now video games as the children age.
The current rule is video games require 1 minute of exercise for one minute of usage. This is a self regulating time limit that has worked well.
similar observation here, with a 2.33-year old. In small doses we've exposed him to videos[1], never unsupervised, never as a parental substitute, but there are a class of them (which happen to be the lowest-effort, highest-contrast, most insipidly soundtracked CGI dreck I can possibly imagine) which are absolute baby crack. He watched some a few months ago and now he can't get them out of his head. It has gotten to the point where we are simply at a hard "no" about any videos because it always devolves into an inconsolable tantrum tearfully begging for more video crack.
[1] kid loves trucks and garbage trucks and trains, and so for a while it was fun to pull up a video of real life trucks and trains and watch them and talk about them. We'd read a book about trucks. He'd point and say, "what's that do," and I'd explain, then say, "wait! I can show you." Which was fun, until it became triggering.
we had generally the same experience but with disney princesses
was sort of a crutch for a sick kid or when things were slammed (e.g. kid 2 or 3 was also sick or we were otherwise busy) but we had to limit them heavily.
we also made the mistake of playing her the soundtracks, which ended up with listening to Aladdin or Frozen on repeat. All told not bad music compared to the drek they're putting out on YT now...
I find the type of show makes a big difference, finding something thoughtful is important (and hard). We also like to set a time limit, usually 1-2 episodes to make the transition easy. Also, no tablets, just commercial-free TV so we can watch with them.
They re-enact fun/positive stuff from shows and don't get locked in or desperate for TV. Seems to work for us.
Generally agreed. Though, Daniel Tiger and Paw Patrol should be judged differently. Paw Patrol is mindless and addictive.
If you desperately need a distraction, PBS shows are less bad. A few moments of pacification may be worth not disturbing the other airline travelers.
Daniel Tiger may be helpful to parents too. Interacting with children is not intuitive. Techniques from PBS shows have helped me. For example, singing to kids about trying food is move effective than a well reasoned monologue.