Comment on Screen time linked with developmental delays, study finds

reversebananimals@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• cybermass@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I mean we have other studies that show kids who play video games usually are better at problem solving and fine motor controls.

  Could be like you said, bad parents. Could also be that the content developed for mobile is somewhat mind numbing by design, most games are idle or just geared towards ads/in game purchases instead of game content. Apps tend to be easier to use and navigate as well.

  Technology is obviously a powerful tool for both good and bad.

  source

  • danielbln@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Also we’re talking about toddlers, not 10 year olds. Toddlers still develop really foundational capabilities in cognition, vision and motor function which 2D flat screen games might have a very different effects than on 11 year old Tommy playing Roblox.

    source
• tissek@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  There are other factors they have observed as well. Let me quote the article.

  There are other factors that can affect a child’s development, such as genetics, adverse experiences such as neglect or abuse, and socioeconomic factors, Nagata said.

  In the latest research, mothers of children with high levels of screen time were more likely to be younger, have never given birth before, have a lower household income, have a lower education level and have postpartum depression.

  But bad screens are a much sexier cause.

  source

  • 8000mark@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Regarding your last sentence: Are you suggesting insincere motives behind this study?

    There is an argument to be made about how studies like this underpin technology averse boomers trying to vilify modern social life. OTOH, studies like this, correctly implemented, are utterly important. It wouldn’t be the first time science has proven something very popular (e.g. smoking) is actually also very harmful.

    source

    • tissek@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That sentence directed towards the article and it choosing to focus on one part of the study. Sure I have not read the study so the link between “struggling” parents and development can be much weaker than screen time and development. It can be that the article presents the study without favoring any results. Or it could be highlighting those results that drives more clicks. I feel the second option is the more likely one.

      source
• yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Yeah, that „study“ studies child neglect…

  „By age 2 […] those who had spent four or more hours with screens were 4.78 times more likely to have underdeveloped communication skills.“

  Wow. Children with no human interaction lacking communication skills, news at eleven.

  source

  • chrisphero@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Those poor children… this is really sad. And I’m really surprised they kept at it for so long.

    source

    • 8000mark@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      What are you talking about? This data was collected in a field study, not in a lab.

      source

      • chrisphero@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I’m just finding that fact sad that people but their 1-year olds in front of a screen for 4+ hours a day, that’s all.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Jochem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Exactly. Also, to make sure the correlation is not caused by other factors such as income, health, education of the parents there should be a statistical correction to make it a sound RCT.

  That said, I would argue more than 1 hour of screen time for a 1 year old is already an extreme amount and thus I would not be surprised to see it has some significant effects on development.

  source
• Hector_McG@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Both measures were according to the mothers’ self-reports.

  In other words, this study has no real scientific value.

  But there are many more problems with this “study” than just that.

  source

  • rambaroo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Lol “I don’t like the results of this study, therefore it has not scientific value because I said so”

    source
  • 8000mark@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This is actually an incredibly poor take. Why do you think self-reported data has no scientific value?

    source
  • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    A lot of studies in this area will suffer from the same issue. You can’t exactly take two groups of toddlers and start mandating they watch 4 hours a day. So you’ll have to depend on self-reports.

    I don’t know about other problems with this particular study, but it’s not a surprising result really. Children need interaction with their caregivers to develop.

    source
• ImperialATAT@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It’s talking about parents giving 1 year olds and 2 year olds 1-4 hours of screen time a day. That amount of screen time for developing humans who sleep for a substantial part of the day is most likely poor stimulus in my opinion. I don’t see how you are jumping to parents prone to producing developmentally delayed children. You call nature. I call nurture. But just to check, which parents are more prone to producing children with developmental delays?

  source