Iphones and kids - Page 4

[loraxc]

So assume, probably correctly in the vast majority of cases, that the parents (who you are seeing for a miniscule portion of their day) do have limits about it.

Actually, the vast majority of children report that their parents set no limits on screen time. I could dig up this reference for you if I had the time, but I recently read a big long academic article about this.

Also, the average kid between 7 and 18 spends 7 hours per day on screen time. This does include simultaneous screen use (counts it "twice").

So...it's a lot. I'm not opposed to this in a blanket sense, but I do also feel a bit cringey when I see it. We were on vacation recently, eating outdoors in a really stunningly gorgeous spot overlooking the ocean, and the family at the next table over had two teens completely absorbed in screens the whole time.

[mamazee]

Originally Posted by loraxc 

So assume, probably correctly in the vast majority of cases, that the parents (who you are seeing for a miniscule portion of their day) do have limits about it.

Actually, the vast majority of children report that their parents set no limits on screen time. I could dig up this reference for you if I had the time, but I recently read a big long academic article about this.

Also, the average kid between 7 and 18 spends 7 hours per day on screen time. This does include simultaneous screen use (counts it "twice").

So...it's a lot. I'm not opposed to this in a blanket sense, but I do also feel a bit cringey when I see it. We were on vacation recently, eating outdoors in a really stunningly gorgeous spot overlooking the ocean, and the family at the next table over had two teens completely absorbed in screens the whole time.

Not setting limits doesn't mean your kids are sitting in front of screens all the time either, though. I don't set limits. but screens don't have a big pull for my kids, so I don't need to set limits. Unless the weather is horrible and they have exhausted every single other option, they don't seem to have any interest at all. At a restaurant if there is a huge wait is one of the few times they DO seem to have an interest in screens, and I'm all about giving them the iPhone than making them and everyone else in the restaurant suffer.

[ShadowMoon]

Originally Posted by aparent 

    Plastic has no texture, no grain, no anything except

color. Ipods have a 2 dimensional screen. A crayon

has texture, smell and it's 3 dimensional. Drawing with

one creates a textured drawing with the lines visibly

elevated from the textured paper as one can see in

a oil painting. A three dimensional effect that is part of the

effect of the work.  A child can understand what a crayon

is in the sense they could imagine making one. What are

the "colors" one sees on a ipod?  A flower depicted on a screen

looks to me nothing compared to a real flower forgetting its

scent and texture.  A crayon can be cut in half and shared

or a box of them can be shared.

    If it is one's purpose as a parent to raise an employee

or employer than it seems technology should be embraced.

I feel technologies should be designed to benefit children not

that children be changed to fit technologies.

I love your post! And I believe I understand the employee/employer part. Of course we all want our children to be employed some day. But just because they may be using various screen technologies by then does not mean we need to give into them now. I will not sit here and tell another person she or he is a lesser parent than I because I choose to not allow my child to play games on a smartphone. There are many times when I let DS flip through my pictures, (I don't have a smartphone since I don't like them), or allow him to play with the Leap Frog game his grandmother gave him, etc. It's just that I try whenever possible to teach him to pass the time without using electronics. We don't have DVDs in the car, I bring crayons and paper or army men and airplanes to restaurants to play with and limit whatever exposure he has to video games or phone games. I know he'll be exposed to all of these sooner or later but I have a small period of time to teach him to use other methods to cure boredom, behave in public, or to simply pass the time. I'm definitely not saying my way is the right way. I just don't like the way our culture is headed with electronics.....

[Evan&Anna's_Mom]

Or the children aren't aware of the limits because the parent hasn't voiced them as such.  I have flexible limits with how much screen time I'm comfortable with for both of my kids (ages 11 and 8, so not little kids).  But I don't know that I've ever said "you may watch X hours of TV per day".  So if asked, they would probably say "no limits".  But that doesn't mean that I don't say "Hey, you've been watching TV (or playing your DS or on the computer) for a while now, why don't you find something outside to do?    But I find that this point varies depending on time of year, health of child (or adult!), what else is going on in our lives etc.  That's sort of how I approach everything -- overall goals, influenced by children's input, but flexibility within that.

Originally Posted by loraxc 



Actually, the vast majority of children report that their parents set no limits on screen time. I could dig up this reference for you if I had the time, but I recently read a big long academic article about this.

[MoonWillow]

Originally Posted by *bejeweled* 



Aren't you a wanna be anthropologist? I'm surprised by your ignorant, sweeping overgeneralizations. Our DD has plenty of choices. We make the final decision. She also has enough screen time, a DSi, laptop, etc. We choose not to have a tv in the car. We are not burying our heads in the sand ignoring technology. We are encouraging her to daydream, to hold conversations, to be in tune with nature and the world around her, or to sit and do nothing.
 

We received a report about the use of "ignorant" to describe the member's statements. Describing the statement is different from describing the individual, which would be name calling. However, "wannabe" is often used as a pejorative term. 

I hope that is not the case here so I think an edit would be best to better express the intent.