TV really a nono?! - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 81 Old 03-22-2011, 03:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
eblindauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So i was browsing around while procracinating on my reasearch paper at my local college library and noticing how much people are agianst toddlers watching TV. this got to me. i can see how something are just point less for they dont learn anything from it. like my mistake to let my son watch IronMan which hes addicted to and thinks he can fly and all taht fun stuff... but i got him into Word World and Leap Frog and those are the best things i think that he got into. he has learned so much. hes going on 3 and can almost do his whole alphabet not allways in order but in a sequence, as well as can count to 10 sometimes skips numbers but he count much more than that he one day suprised me by saying 14 15 16 17! i mean i feel that is a tramendus up for a child his age! i practice with him as well alot but i feel that just us as parents cant make it as fun as a simple show can. i feel that not only is he learning how to do his ABC 123 but hes learning how to put things together recognizing things not in order, spelling! yes i said spelling. so dont down all things tv. give it a try and you will be suprised!


Full time student and stay at  home mom for my 2 awesomely cool boys, Merrik Orian 4-12-08, Asher Drake 10-11-09. They are my world!

 

 

eblindauer is offline  
#2 of 81 Old 03-22-2011, 06:06 PM
 
NEastMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Well... My ideal is for my DS (19mos) to have no tv at all.  Do I follow my ideal perfectly?  NO WAY!  There are some days when I've just got to let him watch some tv for my sanity.  (I do notice that he's super whiny afterwards tho)

 

I think why so many of us are against tv is because the APA says no screen time under 2yrs.  I'm a reading teacher for grades 1-3 and my boss is always giving us research to show how the fast moving images on screens (tv/computer) can actually mess with brain development and eye development.  Babies are supposed to be exploring their world by physically picking things up, feeling textures, experimenting with dropping things, fitting items into other items, etc.  They want to learn by interacting with other real people.  Babies don't get to do these things when they're sitting passively in front of the tv.  My boss would strongly argue that your little one could learn the alphabet, etc. and all those things if you'd just teach him, in lieu of the tv.  (I know, we mothers don't always have the luxury of sitting down w/ baby to do so).

 

Of course many of these warnings apply to babies who are plopped in front of the tv for hours, not the baby who watches the occasional show.  At least, that is what I tell myself when I cue up Caillou on the 'pooter so I can chop veggies for dinner, haha.

 

   

 

 

NEastMomma is offline  
#3 of 81 Old 03-22-2011, 07:25 PM
tzs
 
tzs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

i'm not anti-tv by any means. except usually here it's an adult show on in the background. i've just dabbled in teaching preschool but i have a friend who is a career k-4 teacher who swears that even "educational" shows like sesame street mess with kids' attention spans on a wider scale because it teaches them to respond to quick fast-paced bits. but i suppose then you could just pick something for them to watch that was slow but still captivating. my kiddo loved the documentary "babies" when i put it on to see if she would respond, for example. also, we do use it as a tool, maybe not an educational tool per se but something to really pique her curiosity in the world. we're at an age where dd is discovering everything so if one day she's obsessed with sheep, i'll put on some youtube videos of sheep and she is fascinated. and then we'll go from there (go to the zoo...oh my gosh...there's cows!.....repeat.....)

 

there's also an interesting chapter in the book "culture shock" about how "good" tv (the kind with moral lessons) is actually worse for kids than more violent action packed cartoons. supposedly the lessons in the show are too long so the kids see say, 20 minutes of "problem" (say...a kid being mean to a friend, for example) and only a couple minutes of "problem solved" at the very end. so they learn more negative behaviors in terms of emotional violence and bullying type things from these shows than straightforward knock-em-down stuff from a action cartoon like he-man or whatever.

 

what's interested me is that i notice a marked difference in dd's ability to play independently when there IS tv on in the background...as in she plays better. i know i've seen research quoted that says otherwise but i really do think the background noise actually helps her concentrate and go about her business. i experience it first hand because we keep shabbos which means a full day with no tv, no music, no electronics, no radio, no computer, no phone....nothing....and it's a really tough day for us. for some reason my usually independent toddler becomes so reliant on me for entertainment that i can't even get in a magazine article. bringing me books non-stop, clinging, following me everywhere. then the next day with background noise she can sit for an hour and play with her bean box or even be upstairs playing all by herself without me. what gives?


Reluctant 'Sconie, chassid and mama to sweet toughie Ada Bluma 9/9/09 and loving pittie-mix ("Judge the deed, not the breed!")
tzs is offline  
#4 of 81 Old 03-22-2011, 07:28 PM
 
ellemenope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 706
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I wouldn't let it get to you, OP.  I think it is fine to let your intuition be your guide on this one.  I think the AAP does recommend to limit TV time to 2 hours a day after the age of 24 months.  But, it is just a guideline.

 

For me, my intuition says that TV time would displace time for creative play and parental interaction.  It just would.  There are only so many hours in the day.  Also, I am weary of aggressive behavior in a minority of children's programming, as well as advertisements.  This is really what keeps the TV off in our house.  But, we do enjoy some videos every now and then.  (~ an hour a week.)

 

I am also aware of studies that have shown a negative correlation with number of hours of TV and academic achievement.  (Although, IIRC there were some positive correlation in the early elementary years, which might be the result of some excellent PBS type shows out there.)  I believe that the ADHD correlation were pretty weak but they have been published.  Certainly, a child who is accustomed to watching flashy fast paced cartoons all day will not be too excited about a slide show at school.

ellemenope is offline  
#5 of 81 Old 03-22-2011, 07:35 PM
 
CatsCradle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I second the previous posts about limited or no television before two years old.  From what I understand it is not about the programming so much but the fact that babies learn three-dimensionally, not two dimensionally.  

 

I'm not anti television by any means, but even at almost five, we limit DD's exposure because 1) it is a passive thing and I would prefer that she do something with her brain and hands (as opposed to passively taking in information), and 2) I can't stand advertising and how it is geared toward kids (I want to limit arguments about Cocoa Puffs and Pop Tarts!).

 

That being said, as she gets older and is perhaps less influenced by images on television, then we certainly will let her watch more.  My favorite thing to watch when everyone is asleep is real trashy stuff like Housewives of Orange County.  I admit it!  It is pure entertainment for me, so it is not like I'm an elitist when it comes to content.  Sometimes I just need to zone out.  I tend to be a little more cautionary with DD, however.


"Lawyers, I suppose, were children once." Charles Lamb.
CatsCradle is offline  
#6 of 81 Old 03-22-2011, 07:38 PM
 
ellemenope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 706
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzs View Post

what's interested me is that i notice a marked difference in dd's ability to play independently when there IS tv on in the background...as in she plays better. i know i've seen research quoted that says otherwise but i really do think the background noise actually helps her concentrate and go about her business. i experience it first hand because we keep shabbos which means a full day with no tv, no music, no electronics, no radio, no computer, no phone....nothing....and it's a really tough day for us. for some reason my usually independent toddler becomes so reliant on me for entertainment that i can't even get in a magazine article. bringing me books non-stop, clinging, following me everywhere. then the next day with background noise she can sit for an hour and play with her bean box or even be upstairs playing all by herself without me. what gives?


 

That is so odd.  When I read about background TV it seemed so cut and dry.  It was one of the few things I read about TV and kids where everyone seemed to agree: Background TV not so good for kids.

 

http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/headstart/2009/i-Kids-0902/schmidt-et-al-2008.pdf
 

ETA:  I am not trying to be rude.  Really.  I think it is really interesting that you are experiencing this.  I always thought I could study better with the TV on in the background even though that seems counter-intuitive.

 

I also thought the bit about preschool TV in culture shock was interesting to say the least.  It totally makes sense, and I don't think I'd ever have thought of it like that.

 

ellemenope is offline  
#7 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 06:55 AM
 
pranava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemenope View Post



ETA:  I am not trying to be rude.  Really.  I think it is really interesting that you are experiencing this.  I always thought I could study better with the TV on in the background even though that seems counter-intuitive.

 



I also found it easier to study with the TV on.  Somehow silence, or background music are more distracting to me than TV.  Maybe some memory center of the brain is activated by the visual stimulation and allows the info i'm studying in the book to sink in better - I don't know.  Just a theory from left field.

 

I let DS watch TV under 2 years old because he liked it, he learned from it, and it kept him from non stop whining while I was trying to cook dinner.  Sometimes he will help me cook, but often not and we have to eat.  I don't think the hour or so a day of TV has hurt him any.  I guess you have to look at the alternatives - maybe some kids watch TV instead of interacting with others or their environment - and that's not good, but my kid watches TV instead of spending the better part of an hour throwing a tantrum at my feet because he cannot have my undivided attention 24/7. 

 

Plus, he's a very auditory and visual learner.  He talks to the characters on TV and then reports to me what is going on in the storyline. 

 

 

 


Life is strange and wonderful.  Me read.gif, DP lady.gif, DS (3/09) blahblah.gif , 3 dog2.gif  and 4 cat.gif

pranava is offline  
#8 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 07:17 AM
tzs
 
tzs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemenope View Post



 


 

That is so odd.  When I read about background TV it seemed so cut and dry.  It was one of the few things I read about TV and kids where everyone seemed to agree: Background TV not so good for kids.

 

http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/headstart/2009/i-Kids-0902/schmidt-et-al-2008.pdf
 

ETA:  I am not trying to be rude.  Really.  I think it is really interesting that you are experiencing this.  I always thought I could study better with the TV on in the background even though that seems counter-intuitive.

 

I also thought the bit about preschool TV in culture shock was interesting to say the least.  It totally makes sense, and I don't think I'd ever have thought of it like that.

 



no, i agree, it seems really counter-intuitive and it still puzzles me. maybe some people need stimulation to concentrate (kind of in the same logic that truly ADD people need speeding up to slow down....but different) 

i know i sleep better with city noise and when i moved to a quieter neighborhood it was really hard for me to fall asleep, while my parents, on the other hand, moved to a noisier neighborhood and still have trouble with it.

 

i was also thinking about the whole tv thing this morning and i think the key is, if i would have the tv on for dd (which we haven't really done yet, she's only 18 months and could care less) it's not really "quality time wasted" because those would be the times when i would not otherwise be spending time with her. does that make sense? like, if i'm using tv as a last resort distraction then it's because i wouldn't or felt like i couldn;t be engaging her otherwise and she wasn't engaging herself. so i don;t see it as a loss when used like that.


Reluctant 'Sconie, chassid and mama to sweet toughie Ada Bluma 9/9/09 and loving pittie-mix ("Judge the deed, not the breed!")
tzs is offline  
#9 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 07:24 AM
 
mamazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: US midwest
Posts: 7,528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I'm of two minds.


First, I feel that TV is not good for children, and particularly under 2.  Anything they learn from TV could be learned by reading to them, and it would involve interaction with the parent and would not involve the harmful effects of TV.  (If you want info about the harmful effects I would google "toddlers television harmful".)  Also, I don't think learning something earlier necessarily means they're learning more.  With toddlers, if they aren't learning one thing, they're learning another.  The fact that they learned letters at that point instead of a little later doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

On the other hand, while I do limit TV, I don't ban it, and I think that it is something we could all relax a bit about.  I don't think some TV watching is going to ruin kids or anything.  On the other hand, I don't think it's beneficial either.  (How many hands is that?)  I see TV as being negative before 2, and being somewhere between neutral and negative after 2, depending on age, how much TV, and what is watched.

mamazee is offline  
#10 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 10:53 AM
 
Asiago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

This is an interesting article.

France has banned baby television programming, which targets the three year and under audience.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26312386/ns/today-entertainment/

Asiago is offline  
#11 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 01:08 PM
 
crunchy_mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post

I'm of two minds.


First, I feel that TV is not good for children, and particularly under 2.  Anything they learn from TV could be learned by reading to them, and it would involve interaction with the parent and would not involve the harmful effects of TV.  (If you want info about the harmful effects I would google "toddlers television harmful".)  Also, I don't think learning something earlier necessarily means they're learning more.  With toddlers, if they aren't learning one thing, they're learning another.  The fact that they learned letters at that point instead of a little later doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

On the other hand, while I do limit TV, I don't ban it, and I think that it is something we could all relax a bit about.  I don't think some TV watching is going to ruin kids or anything.  On the other hand, I don't think it's beneficial either.  (How many hands is that?)  I see TV as being negative before 2, and being somewhere between neutral and negative after 2, depending on age, how much TV, and what is watched.


I agree with this. We are pretty strict with the no-TV thing with my 2yo, although every once in awhile we'll do an exercise video together or watch a 3-minute thing on youtube (i.e. how the earth revolves around the sun or how to change a car battery lol.gif) Certainly NOT watching TV has not harmed him in any way -- he has known the alphabet, numbers, etc. since he was 18mos -- the only negative (and I don't really consider it a bad thing) is that he has no clue what people are talking about when they ask him if he likes Elmo or Dora or whatever. I don't really believe that TV is beneficial for young children but I do think it can be beneficial for the parents... and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, every parent needs to do whatever they need to do to stay sane!!!

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#12 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 01:23 PM
 
Honey693's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think everything in moderation is fine.  Some days my DD watches no tv and then some days she'll watch 2 hours b/c we're doing a movie night or I'm exhausted and need the break. Just so long as the tv isn't doing more parenting than me I'm ok with it.


obstruct livery vehicles

Honey693 is offline  
#13 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 01:26 PM
tzs
 
tzs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

for me a downside of being "strict" about tv rather than just blase (that "e" gets an accent...blas-EY) about it is that occasionally, and i'm sure depending on how you do it, it turns the tv into this "forbidden fruit." my neices and nephews theoretically have no tv, although they do watch occasional videos and movies and you should see them at their grandparents' house or at our house. oh....my....gosh......they go nuts. they freak out, they fight, they won't turn it off, they yell (at adults!) who dare to block their view or change the channel or turn it off, they cry. seeing them really makes me want to have a more laissez faire attitude about it. respect for adults and others is really big in my book so if their version of "no tv" is causing these major attitude violations at times, then "no tv" is doing no good in my book.

i guess my goal would be to let dd have access to it without sitting in front of it all day. maybe that means only letting her watch what we want to watch or only truly educational stuff...i dunno...i can talk big but we're not there yet. i remember as a kid really only watching documentary-type stuff and science programs with my parents at night....nova and newton's apple stuff. i don;t see a kid getting all cracked out on stuff like that.


Reluctant 'Sconie, chassid and mama to sweet toughie Ada Bluma 9/9/09 and loving pittie-mix ("Judge the deed, not the breed!")
tzs is offline  
#14 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 02:33 PM
 
kismetbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Nor. Cal.
Posts: 1,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

In my ideal mommy world I would not even have a TV. .. but in reality I let DS, 17m watch one (occasionally two) Signing Time video a day.  But hey, in my ideal mommy-world, I'd also have extended family around to help me.  The reality is that DS is high needs and sometimes I really need to cook dinner and it would be impossible without the distraction.  I don't feel great about it, but I keep it limited and he has actually learned a lot of sign language from the DVDs.  Of course I reinforce that by using the signs myself, but he truly loves those videos.  And now he has seen them all so many times, that he will often just play while they are on, but get upset if I turn it off before it's over.  So, I definitely can relate to the child playing better on their own with the TV on.

 

I was brought up without a TV in the house till I was 10 or so and I was one of those "weird" kids who would totally zone out if I saw a TV, b/c I was so unaccustomed to it.  My friends used to tease me about it when I'd go to their house and I couldn't ignore the TV as background.  

 

So I guess I'm aiming for something in the middle for my kids, some moderation, but not total banishment of media.


photosmile2.gif Me= crunchy mama to one rambunctious toddler, born on October 1, 2009. And one sweet little baby born January 19, 2012. heartbeat.gif

kismetbaby is offline  
#15 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 02:36 PM
 
HeartfullyHappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post

I'm of two minds.


First, I feel that TV is not good for children, and particularly under 2.  Anything they learn from TV could be learned by reading to them, and it would involve interaction with the parent and would not involve the harmful effects of TV.  (If you want info about the harmful effects I would google "toddlers television harmful".)  Also, I don't think learning something earlier necessarily means they're learning more.  With toddlers, if they aren't learning one thing, they're learning another.  The fact that they learned letters at that point instead of a little later doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

On the other hand, while I do limit TV, I don't ban it, and I think that it is something we could all relax a bit about.  I don't think some TV watching is going to ruin kids or anything.  On the other hand, I don't think it's beneficial either.  (How many hands is that?)  I see TV as being negative before 2, and being somewhere between neutral and negative after 2, depending on age, how much TV, and what is watched.



I was going to say something along these lines. While it is amazing the things my daughter has learned from TV shows like some numbers or some ABC's, I know that she could also learn them from me and I wouldn't be taking chances with potential ADHD problems should that turn out to be factual, or that she may even learn them more concretely (in hands on activities, etc.). On the other hand, I am human and frankly have no idea what I am doing some days. The fact that DD learned about "teamwork" from the Wonderpets probably isn't worth bragging about, but Ms. Independent sure is willing to receive some help if I say that magic word now. I'm not sure how I would have ever explained the concept in a way she would be excited about if it weren't for that show. DH used to use the TV as a source of entertainment a lot as he also didn't know what to do, was tired from work, etc. So we do have a battle over it but it's getting better.

 

As for the background TV - I once did a research paper on toddlers and TV for my child development class. The articles I did read about background TV tended to be about violence, advertising, and other adult media in the background. Definitely a HUGE no no. I never found a great article for educational TV in the background though.

 

I did find some interesting stuff like Barney was rated really well on it's educational qualities. And Blues Clues was good because the show really makes an effort to involve the LO by asking questions and leaving a big pause for them to answer. Anything that had an infrequent change of screen shots was better for the ADHD concerns too.

HeartfullyHappy is offline  
#16 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 02:55 PM
 
samstress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: so-cal
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post

...so dont down all things tv. give it a try and you will be suprised!


no thanks, i'll stick with limiting the amount of television my children see.

katelove and openpollination like this.

mother is a verb
I GOT MY vbac.gif!!!

samstress is offline  
#17 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 02:58 PM
 
JudiAU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Where creepy facebook-featured threads can't find me
Posts: 3,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever. And even if the research was different we probably wouldn't because I hate advertising directed to kids and I detest how licensed characters get shoved down our throats EVeRYWHERE.

Well revisit at a much older age.
JudiAU is offline  
#18 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 03:14 PM
 
katelove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,747
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by JudiAU View Post

No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever.


This is pretty much us too. Although J has watched a couple of YouTube clips with Daddy. I have said that I will make an exception for things which are culturally significant (by my definition winky.gif ). I would have let her watch the moon landing for example. And for our one family tradition which involves TV. Each year on Boxing Day my family gets together for lunch and watches the start of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. For me the family togetherness trumps the TV issue on this occasion.

 

As far as learning the alphabet, numbers etc I am not concerned with her learning them early. I don't see any particular benefit and, if I did, I'd rather teach her myself. 

 

I can see the benefits to the parent who has more than one child and needs to keep an active little person quite so they can attend to a baby or something or if a person is sick with no help. But that, for me, is a parent benefit only.

 


Mother of two spectacular girls, born mid-2010 and late 2012  mdcblog5.gif

katelove is online now  
#19 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 03:20 PM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,427
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
We kept the tv on a very short leash until my kids were 8 and 10 years old. Not only are they both gifted, but I have teachers brag to me all the time about my kids carrying novels around with them. They also play an instrument and draw well. You don't get mastery of some of these things if you are "plugged in " all the time.
katelove likes this.
philomom is online now  
#20 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 07:45 PM
 
anechka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

No TV here, and she is 2.5 years old doing just fine without it. We read her books instead!

anechka is offline  
#21 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 09:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
eblindauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by samstress View Post


 


no thanks, I'll stick with limiting the amount of television my children see.


I never mentioned not limiting TV. but allowing children to experience some educational TV shows. for yes its better that we teach them our selves but we cant quit always be able to do so, and they don't always find us entertaining! 

 


Full time student and stay at  home mom for my 2 awesomely cool boys, Merrik Orian 4-12-08, Asher Drake 10-11-09. They are my world!

 

 

eblindauer is offline  
#22 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 09:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
eblindauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by JudiAU View Post

No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever. And even if the research was different we probably wouldn't because I hate advertising directed to kids and I detest how licensed characters get shoved down our throats EVeRYWHERE.

Well revisit at a much older age.


you dont have to watch comerical tv. their is netflix, or dvds. but that is your choice, i do know of many i mean many children that watched tv more than i will let my own kids watch and grew up to graduate from high educated school with 4.0s and became very successful in life

 


Full time student and stay at  home mom for my 2 awesomely cool boys, Merrik Orian 4-12-08, Asher Drake 10-11-09. They are my world!

 

 

eblindauer is offline  
#23 of 81 Old 03-23-2011, 10:10 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudiAU View Post

No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever. And even if the research was different we probably wouldn't because I hate advertising directed to kids and I detest how licensed characters get shoved down our throats EVeRYWHERE.

Well revisit at a much older age.

Wow, those are some pretty judgmental statements to make. While I am sure that there are some children who will fit your description I'm not sure how you would find conclusive proof that tv is to blame.
TCMoulton is offline  
#24 of 81 Old 03-24-2011, 12:12 AM
 
samstress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: so-cal
Posts: 2,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post


 


I never mentioned not limiting TV. but allowing children to experience some educational TV shows. for yes its better that we teach them our selves but we cant quit always be able to do so, and they don't always find us entertaining! 

 


ah, yes, but you did say to give tv a try, and i simply said "no thank you".

 

just because our children don't always find us "entertaining" doesn't mean i'm going to let them indulge in some rubbish that they do find entertaining.  and, honestly, what are "educational tv shows"?  i'd much rather my child be doing something rather than staring at people doing things.

 


mother is a verb
I GOT MY vbac.gif!!!

samstress is offline  
#25 of 81 Old 03-24-2011, 06:10 AM
 
crunchy_mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post


 


I never mentioned not limiting TV. but allowing children to experience some educational TV shows. for yes its better that we teach them our selves but we cant quit always be able to do so, and they don't always find us entertaining! 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post




you dont have to watch comerical tv. their is netflix, or dvds. but that is your choice, i do know of many i mean many children that watched tv more than i will let my own kids watch and grew up to graduate from high educated school with 4.0s and became very successful in life

 


Maybe it's just your wording but it sounds like you are on a mission to get everyone to let their kids watch TV??? I don't really understand the point of this... I mean, it's totally your choice if you want to let your kid watch TV but why try to convince others to as well? (Especially in the face of evidence that it may not be best for toddlers)... I guess I just don't get the point of this thread, not sure if it was mean to be a vent or a PSA or what...

(Sorry, I hope that doesn't sound harsh, I am just confused!!)

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#26 of 81 Old 03-24-2011, 07:00 AM
 
pranava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post




you dont have to watch comerical tv. their is netflix, or dvds. but that is your choice, i do know of many i mean many children that watched tv more than i will let my own kids watch and grew up to graduate from high educated school with 4.0s and became very successful in life

 



 Yep, I agree.  I watched WAY too much TV when I was little, and played lots of video games.  On my Comodore 64 (showing my age!  eeeek!!)  I could type L  O  A  D "*" ,1,8 to get the list of my computer games to come up before I even knew that I was typing the word "load" .  I still graduated top of my class, went to college, no ADHD, and am doing fine in life.   I often credit my Tetris obsession for my excellent organizational and spatial skills.  

 

Moderation.  I would rather my son not watch TV.  I would rather spend more time with him teaching, reading, playing - and we do lots of that already, but when something has to get done that he cannot participate in, I don't think I am harming him by letting him watch Nick Jr.    A sane mommy is a better mommy!  If you can manage to be TV free, I think that's great, but there is certainly no reason to beat yourself up over TV in moderation.

 

 

eblindauer likes this.

Life is strange and wonderful.  Me read.gif, DP lady.gif, DS (3/09) blahblah.gif , 3 dog2.gif  and 4 cat.gif

pranava is offline  
#27 of 81 Old 03-24-2011, 01:43 PM
 
JudiAU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Where creepy facebook-featured threads can't find me
Posts: 3,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by JudiAU View Post

No tv here for either kid. The research is pretty conclusive as a no- no. Kids who watch a lot of tv (more then 30m) have fewer verbal skills, less attentions span, are more aggressive, engage in less creative play, and eat less healthy diets. Parents might gain something (babysitting) or not (addicted kids who whine about it a lot) but children don't. They'll pick up those same skills with a book.

So we don't. Ever. And even if the research was different we probably wouldn't because I hate advertising directed to kids and I detest how licensed characters get shoved down our throats EVeRYWHERE.

Well revisit at a much older age.



Wow, those are some pretty judgmental statements to make. While I am sure that there are some children who will fit your description I'm not sure how you would find conclusive proof that tv is to blame.


I am not sure why you find these statement judgemental? These are not my "judgements." These are the well documented results of serious peer-reviewed research regarding early television exposure for small children. Everything in the first paragraph is from the science of early exposure, I am not making casual conclusions by say, watching kids at the park or something. If you review the literature, negative outcomes from television are clear. This is why the APA suggests no television exposure at all under 2. France, for instance, doesn't even allow programming for children under 3 on the air.

 

The only conclusion I've drawn is that the research is clear and thus we don't use the television at this time. Because, seriously, if the APA suggest no tv before 2 I think we should all be waiting until our kids are 8.

JudiAU is offline  
#28 of 81 Old 03-24-2011, 01:48 PM
 
JudiAU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Where creepy facebook-featured threads can't find me
Posts: 3,586
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pranava View Post



 



 Yep, I agree.  I watched WAY too much TV when I was little, and played lots of video games.  On my Comodore 64 (showing my age!  eeeek!!)  I could type L  O  A  D "*" ,1,8 to get the list of my computer games to come up before I even knew that I was typing the word "load" .  I still graduated top of my class, went to college, no ADHD, and am doing fine in life.   I often credit my Tetris obsession for my excellent organizational and spatial skills.  

 

Moderation.  I would rather my son not watch TV.  I would rather spend more time with him teaching, reading, playing - and we do lots of that already, but when something has to get done that he cannot participate in, I don't think I am harming him by letting him watch Nick Jr.    A sane mommy is a better mommy!  If you can manage to be TV free, I think that's great, but there is certainly no reason to beat yourself up over TV in moderation.

 

 



Yes, I too watched a lot of tv when I was a kid. Had one in my room. And I turned out okay, hold an advanced degree in my field, and still love to read. I don't think television viewing is intellecually crippling. But it isn't hard to look back at my childhood and know that I would have been a more serious student of many things and a more physical child and (sigh) adult if my television watching had been restricted.

 

 

JudiAU is offline  
#29 of 81 Old 03-24-2011, 01:58 PM
 
katelove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,747
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post


 


I never mentioned not limiting TV. but allowing children to experience some educational TV shows. for yes its better that we teach them our selves but we cant quit always be able to do so, and they don't always find us entertaining! 

 





Quote:
Originally Posted by eblindauer View Post




you dont have to watch comerical tv. their is netflix, or dvds. but that is your choice, i do know of many i mean many children that watched tv more than i will let my own kids watch and grew up to graduate from high educated school with 4.0s and became very successful in life

 




Maybe it's just your wording but it sounds like you are on a mission to get everyone to let their kids watch TV??? I don't really understand the point of this... I mean, it's totally your choice if you want to let your kid watch TV but why try to convince others to as well? (Especially in the face of evidence that it may not be best for toddlers)... I guess I just don't get the point of this thread, not sure if it was mean to be a vent or a PSA or what...

(Sorry, I hope that doesn't sound harsh, I am just confused!!)


This is how I interpreted the OP as well (although I don't know what a PSA is). I think it was the last sentence about giving it a try and we might be surprised by the results. I'm not surprised that kids learn the alphabet and numbers from watching TV, I just don't care if my baby doesn't learn them super early. In fact I'd probably go so far as to say  I  would rather she *didn't* learn them super early.

 


Mother of two spectacular girls, born mid-2010 and late 2012  mdcblog5.gif

katelove is online now  
#30 of 81 Old 03-24-2011, 02:27 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post


First, I feel that TV is not good for children, and particularly under 2.  Anything they learn from TV could be learned by reading to them,

Theoretically, but that wasn't my experience with baby signing. I tried signing with dd from birth, and she still wasn't signing around 9 months. Literally one day I tried signing to her and got no reaction, she saw a Signing Time DVD at our cousin's house, and she was signing the next day. She then also started learning signs directly from me which wasn't the case before she saw the DVD. Sure, a class with a bunch of other kids dancing around and signing and singing might've had the same result (although she hasn't really responded to baby-sign story times at the library, even though I learned a few dozen signs from those), but that's a lot more resource intensive compared to checking DVDs from the library.

 

Because she enjoyed pointing out letters "look ABCs!", and like me singing the alphabet song to her, I got the LeapFrog Letter Factory from the library for her around 24 months. She asked to watch it twice, straight through, and then she knew her letter sounds. Nearly 100% accurate (and this is a child who regularly mixes up colors, mommy/daddy, horses vs. doggies, she's not 100% on anything yet) on all letter sounds in any writing style or context, including saying "/x/ /x/" because of the x's formed by tiles on the floor.

 

Apparently the studies that show that kids don't learn from videos  are done by comparing kids interacting with a live adult to kids watching a video of the same adult with no adult interaction. Which is an abnormal way for kids to watch videos. It would be more useful if the studies had compared a live adult to a video designed for children (e.g. one of the numerous "educational" cartoons) watched with adult interaction.

eblindauer likes this.
sapphire_chan is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off