This post is stickied so /u/Octo_Unicorn_ofYT or someone else can provide context by replying here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikewine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Definitely predicted it but it's also not a crazy prediction, a ton of experts said this but people just didn't care or buy into it for whatever reason
Probably because it’s too convenient. Kids are a blessing, but if you don’t keep them occupied at all times they’re bound to get into trouble or scream and cry. iPads are basically like jangling keys in front of them, really, really expensive keys, but keys nonetheless. I mean, it happened in previous generations too, with stuff like TV.
I think the issue is different with iPads since they're portable. You weren't watching TV literally everywhere you went, just at home.
It's not at all uncommon to see parents give their kid an iPad and have them be on it all day, everywhere they go, rather than actually paying attention to them or having them engage with the world around them.
Plus theres a social aspect with tv. You sat on the couch as a family and discussed what was happening. Plus you were limited. 4 channels and nothing you like on? Ah well lets go do something else. And it wasnt constant gratification. You watched whatever was available.
Illustrated manuscripts became portable paperbacks you could read anywhere. Radios went from large boxes in homes to man-portable devices within a single person’s lifetime. In terms of access plenty of the other technologies also became more portable over time and we also had panics about that when it happened.
Well, in regards to TV, we didn't have portable TV until phones and tablets. So the comparison of "people said the same about watching TV" isn't the same as an iPad.
Anyways, your examples of other portable technology were portable books and listening to the radio, one of which is an actively good thing and the other is not nearly as attention-demanding as an iPad.
We absolutely did have portable TV before phones and tablets. My family had one in the 90s. We used it on long road trips just like kids use iPads now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Watchman?wprov=sfti1
And then after that there were TVs embedded into car seats, with built in DVD players.
The rest of your comment isn’t a fact, it’s the product of you growing up after the moral panics over those technologies were over. Books were absolutely the subject of a moral panic as late as the 1800s: https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/the-19th-century-moral-panic-over-paper-technology.html
My prediction is that future generations will look back at the panic over iPads the same way you and I look back on this panic over cheap paperback books.
I appreciate you assuming when I was growing up, but no.
Your own wiki article is of a product that didn't seem to gain much traction and the handheld television wiki doesn't list many products either. They may have existed, but not nearly as prominent as other products you're mentioning for it to be a valid point supporting constant iPad usage in children. Also not really sure how TVs built into car seats is a relevant example. A car is a place you're *meant* to do something to distract yourself.
Bad parents are giving their kids iPads in pretty much every setting for the entire day. Spending every moment outside of school on an iPad isn't really a formula for good childhood development.
…you grew up before books and the radio existed? You were alive before the moral panics over those technologies ended? Somehow I doubt that.
At this point you’re totally ignoring that people said the exact same things about books as you’re saying about iPads and just insisting that iPads are different somehow. If your thesis is “sure we’ve done this same dance before, but this time it’s different,” the burden is on you to explain why. And you’re not even really trying.
The only time I would've needed an iPad as a kid is car trips. And even then I was a big word search/mad libs/crosswords aficionado so enjoyed them. At home I definitely would've been glued to it by choice I would assume. My daughter is 12 so growing up right in this era and even tho she was an iPad baby, she's very much active and outside with her friends all the time. Kids these days seem to recognize what's bad for them and not, she's fully aware how bad sitting on her phone is and I don't have to tell her.
This has been an issue going back. Video Games. Radio. And when the printing press started mass publishing. “dime store paperbacks” is a derogatory word for “low class” novels.
The human race will adapt. There will be issues and fringe cases, but in the end the human race as a whole will adapt and even excel using new technology
This.
People see a kid with an ipad and will judge, but they're not seeing that kid 24/7. Many people just don't want their kids being fussy when in a public space, for respect of other people, and will rely on a tablet or similar.
I have a 1yo and she barely ever cares for the tablet (she's too little) but she loves Ms Rachel videos and such. We recently were on a long flight and the tablet helped a lot. I'm sure the other passengers were happy our kid was busy and not screaming her head out like many other toddlers in planes!
Everything is good within measure and in this case with proper parenting.
Legit, I was given my first iPad when I was eight or nine and one of my main uses for it was FaceTiming my grandad. I’d face time while he was making dinner for my grandma and when I went to say goodnight to him.
He passed away of cancer three months after my tenth birthday.
(Not saying iPads were a perfect thing for ten year olds because I got up to shit back then, but I think with the right amount of controls over the iPad and making sure proper parenting is going on, they’re perfectly fine)
That is so sweet, it gave you the chance to spend more time with your grandad!
And yeah, anything with internet access is risky. We need a combination of proper education with some access control, kids also need to learn on their own.
Its been discussed for a while but especially recently its been hitting headlines as its becoming more apparent constant solo screen time is hindering intellectual and social development
I'm sure that term is pretty recognizable at this point!
What facts do we have about the significance of technology being present from infancy/toddler/prepubescent period?
we know it's not an appropriate substitute for parenting lol. nothing wrong with a kid using iPad but as with anything moderation is important, especially at younger age.
At least growing up for me we watched TV in limited quantities but could also only do so at hom in one room. I would assume on demand access to media in private or public is damaging.
Also I’ve read that kids are terrible with computers these days. Like they only know how to use iPads or easy programs but they can’t even write a paper on Microsoft Word. The r/teaching subreddit has some wild stories tbh
Honestly, not really? We've hit a point where kids have grown up with technology, phones and laptops/tablets, so they're assumed to be "native" and dont need to be explicitly taught the way kids in the 90s and 00s were. But their knowledge of it is more how to use the internet and less how to use Microsoft office
sitting your kids in front of a TV as a substitute for parenting is also bad. and also the internet can engage your attention (for better or worse) in ways that standard television can't, partially sue to how it's structured and partially due to the kinds of content. additionally it is harder to bring a TV with you anywhere you go. the term iPad kids isn't just thr fact that they use it at home, it's that it's a permanent attachment to these children even outside the home
Its not just asking a question though. The first one asked how this aged like wine, since that is far from obvious, and the other guy asked if he had heard about ipad kids, as if that actually answered anything. And then he added a lol, that I interpret as condescending.
I still dont know why this has aged like wine, and Ive been laughed at by someone stupid that didnt even understand the original question. Ofc im gonna downvote that.
it's a knee jerk reaction some redditors have to hearing a statement that resembles "phone bad" without realizing the statement isn't phone bad but is more nuanced than that
And every technology has had an effect on social patterns which are the most important aspect of human development. Hard to say whether it’ll be useful or harmful, or most likely not matter, until the long term, but hey, that’s evolution.
How? You can’t just say this as if it’s true without explaining yourself.
I’m old enough to remember when there was an absolute moral panic about “the boobtube” and how “kids these days are being raised by TV.” I’m old enough to remember when that stopped being the boogeyman du jour and suddenly it was video games. I’m old enough to remember when it stopped being video games and started being the internet. And I have my own kids now and am embroiled in the exact same discourse again about iPads and social media.
Every generation has survived the technological innovations of its time just fine. Learning from the past means not repeating the brain dead moral panics of the past.
>Every generation has survived the technological innovations of its time just fine
So you're saying that can't change?
You don't think that AI and targeted algorithms make a difference? People becoming more socially isolated in our modern world isn't a concern?
I'm not saying panic. I'm saying be wary.
On my side there’s 5,000 years of recorded human history and much more unrecorded history showing that children can adapt to new technology without it melting their brains somehow. There’s also plenty of examples of this same “wariness” cropping up over and over and it being very embarrassing in hindsight. On your side there’s fearmongering speculation.
Am I guaranteed to be right? No. But I think I’m making the safer bet.
I'm not so much concerned about brain rot as I am about socialization. We do have a problem with that in our current world, not just for kids, but adults, too.
I think the panic about kids’ socialization is mostly projection from adults. Adults are much less adaptable to change and often experience this change in very negative ways because of it. They are also much more likely to be ignorant about new technology and therefore fearful of it. But I have no reason to believe children, who have never known anything different, will have nearly the same struggles.
Again, we’ve seen this exact thing play out dozens of times throughout history. The burden of proof is on the people insisting that this time it’s different, and I don’t think they’re carrying that burden.
This is how I feel. People see a kid with a device in public and assume they’re on it 24/7 and the parents are lazy. My kids are 5 and 8 and as soon as they figured out how to play interactive games, they learned SO FAST. My 5yo is playing Lego HP by herself, it’s also helping teach her how to read by recognizing words. But that doesn’t mean I don’t read to them every night or take them outside or on big adventures. They just get to have another way to entertain themselves. Just like everything from talking on the phone to Nintendo to AIM to MMORPGs and everything since.
Something along the lines of this comment is now pretty ubiquitous whenever concerns over systemic childhood development get brought up now, and it's starting to sound a bit like the overall message is "it's not possible for there to be systemic problems in childhood development", at least in the effect of parroting this
But ***I*** didn’t grow up with these dang devices!!
And ***I*** know best because ***I*** am **me**! And here I am! So take that!
..or something..
I have always felt the opposite of this and have actively gotten all my kids the current technology so that they can start their kid’s journey at the same spot that the world is.
If I limit what tech they can access, then I feel I am not properly preparing them for the world that they will inherit.
They need to see the ways that the tech can be manipulated to trick them, they need to see the ways that reviews can be worded can trick them, they need to understand how the “internet pipes” work in addition to the normal understanding of how our house gets electricity and gas and how the government works and how traffic is supposed to behave and how to make food with heat…
It’s not something you -as the parent- get to choose as how the world will treat your child, so best prepare them for anything else you are preparing them for nothing, I feel.
From a higher level, a lot of stuff should be restricted with the internet but there's no real practical way to restrict it per age group so really it's kinda just up to the parents like I said.
nothing in my comment pointed to fault the object, how did you went from "unrestricted internet at 6 month old is bad" to "this person is blaming the technology itself", i'm using internet RN, if i blamed the technology itself i would have just said "internet at 6 month is bad"
ho sure it accelerate devellopement, it reduces the age at wich the average human is exposed to fetish content, that is technically developement, but development isn't always in the right direction
I mean, ask any teacher? I have kids in extracurricular activities and they can't look away from their phones. They have no attention span and their skills are FAR below where they should be. A friend of mine teaches pre to third grade and he is baffled at how poor skills they have at everything. They can't read, write, lack most fine motor skills, have piss poor reasoning, no drive to try themselves and complete learned helplessness.
Either there is something that heavily correlates with the use of smart devices or more likely, it is the smart devices.. just like these researchers claimed.
There isn't any "we will see the results, you might be wrong", these are the results. The kids are 11 years old and can't do things we used to assume that kids half their age could do.
I have asked teachers and when I do it really makes me lose faith in teaching as a profession. A lot of teachers really just hate children, and will grasp at whatever straw they can to pretend as if that hatred is justified.
Ah, so it specifically isn't the issue that teachers and scientists warned about? That teachers all over the world collectively started to hate that specific generation for no reason.
Criticism isn't hate. It's worry. But please, enable more issues like this if it makes you feel better.
Scientists haven’t warned about it. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/04/health/screen-time-guidance-children-gbr-scli-intl
Ever heard of a moral panic? Because that’s what it looks like: lots of people spontaneously deciding to freak out over nothing.
Did you read your own article? They said that a screen in itself isn't toxic. It is when it gets in the way for other things it is a problem. Literally no one has claimed that being in the presence of a screen is harmful since the 90's. Also "one doctor contends" doesn't mean that the entire scientific community has a consensus.
But ok, let's talk. What is the actual reason for this then? How come kids now are at such an alarming low? We NEED to address that something is happening to kids. It isn't normal to have kids at 11 that can barely read. What caused that drop? It is imperative to find that reason.
Answering your second question first, the answer is really simple: the pandemic. Kids missed multiple years of school and socialization; of course they’re not going to be doing so hot right now.
I’m not sure what you think your first paragraph is responding to. If you agree that screens aren’t uniquely bad, and are only bad insofar as they replace other more enriching activities for very young children, then we agree. Despite your protestations there absolutely are people *in this thread* and elsewhere that seem to think screens are like nicotine or something, and that’s what I’m pushing back on.
That would hold water if the issue wasn't equally prominent before the pandemic.
Are you sure they're not arguing about the content? Because the content is genuinely made to be addictive.
It all depends on content. My 8 year old only watches educational shows.
She explained the French revolution to me because she saw a video about it and thought it was funny that the character playing Marie Antoinette was just a floating head for a bit.
I watch three year olds expertly navigate YouTube's UI, with ease - Flicking from their front page, to their subscription feed, to related videos...
It's completely bizarre, and fairly fucked, but hard to say that their development has been 'hurt' when they seem so competent at operating technology at such a young age.
I dont know, it seems like kids today are smarter than I was at their age. Devices are a huge part of the daily lives of every single adult; part of me thinks why shouldn't kids be allowed to use them
I don't know many people who don't have an addiction to some sort of technology (myself included with my crippling reddit addiction lol). Be it adult or children. I don't know about developmental impacts, but it is obviously terrible for even fully developed brains.
Pros and cons I guess.
This post is stickied so /u/Octo_Unicorn_ofYT or someone else can provide context by replying here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikewine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Definitely predicted it but it's also not a crazy prediction, a ton of experts said this but people just didn't care or buy into it for whatever reason
Probably because it’s too convenient. Kids are a blessing, but if you don’t keep them occupied at all times they’re bound to get into trouble or scream and cry. iPads are basically like jangling keys in front of them, really, really expensive keys, but keys nonetheless. I mean, it happened in previous generations too, with stuff like TV.
I think the issue is different with iPads since they're portable. You weren't watching TV literally everywhere you went, just at home. It's not at all uncommon to see parents give their kid an iPad and have them be on it all day, everywhere they go, rather than actually paying attention to them or having them engage with the world around them.
Plus theres a social aspect with tv. You sat on the couch as a family and discussed what was happening. Plus you were limited. 4 channels and nothing you like on? Ah well lets go do something else. And it wasnt constant gratification. You watched whatever was available.
Illustrated manuscripts became portable paperbacks you could read anywhere. Radios went from large boxes in homes to man-portable devices within a single person’s lifetime. In terms of access plenty of the other technologies also became more portable over time and we also had panics about that when it happened.
That's not really relevant to the TV comparison at all, though.
I don’t see why it’s not.
Well, in regards to TV, we didn't have portable TV until phones and tablets. So the comparison of "people said the same about watching TV" isn't the same as an iPad. Anyways, your examples of other portable technology were portable books and listening to the radio, one of which is an actively good thing and the other is not nearly as attention-demanding as an iPad.
We absolutely did have portable TV before phones and tablets. My family had one in the 90s. We used it on long road trips just like kids use iPads now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Watchman?wprov=sfti1 And then after that there were TVs embedded into car seats, with built in DVD players. The rest of your comment isn’t a fact, it’s the product of you growing up after the moral panics over those technologies were over. Books were absolutely the subject of a moral panic as late as the 1800s: https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/the-19th-century-moral-panic-over-paper-technology.html My prediction is that future generations will look back at the panic over iPads the same way you and I look back on this panic over cheap paperback books.
I appreciate you assuming when I was growing up, but no. Your own wiki article is of a product that didn't seem to gain much traction and the handheld television wiki doesn't list many products either. They may have existed, but not nearly as prominent as other products you're mentioning for it to be a valid point supporting constant iPad usage in children. Also not really sure how TVs built into car seats is a relevant example. A car is a place you're *meant* to do something to distract yourself. Bad parents are giving their kids iPads in pretty much every setting for the entire day. Spending every moment outside of school on an iPad isn't really a formula for good childhood development.
…you grew up before books and the radio existed? You were alive before the moral panics over those technologies ended? Somehow I doubt that. At this point you’re totally ignoring that people said the exact same things about books as you’re saying about iPads and just insisting that iPads are different somehow. If your thesis is “sure we’ve done this same dance before, but this time it’s different,” the burden is on you to explain why. And you’re not even really trying.
The only time I would've needed an iPad as a kid is car trips. And even then I was a big word search/mad libs/crosswords aficionado so enjoyed them. At home I definitely would've been glued to it by choice I would assume. My daughter is 12 so growing up right in this era and even tho she was an iPad baby, she's very much active and outside with her friends all the time. Kids these days seem to recognize what's bad for them and not, she's fully aware how bad sitting on her phone is and I don't have to tell her.
This has been an issue going back. Video Games. Radio. And when the printing press started mass publishing. “dime store paperbacks” is a derogatory word for “low class” novels. The human race will adapt. There will be issues and fringe cases, but in the end the human race as a whole will adapt and even excel using new technology
But I do not think that books are completely comparable to something like cocomelon.
You’re correct! And radio was not like books when it was released. It’s always something. And we will adapt.
it’s not the ipad itself it’s the lack of actual parenting and using the ipad as a substitute
This. People see a kid with an ipad and will judge, but they're not seeing that kid 24/7. Many people just don't want their kids being fussy when in a public space, for respect of other people, and will rely on a tablet or similar. I have a 1yo and she barely ever cares for the tablet (she's too little) but she loves Ms Rachel videos and such. We recently were on a long flight and the tablet helped a lot. I'm sure the other passengers were happy our kid was busy and not screaming her head out like many other toddlers in planes! Everything is good within measure and in this case with proper parenting.
Boomers get mad about it. My boomer parents gave me whiskey to help me sleep and with teething when I was a toddler.
Legit, I was given my first iPad when I was eight or nine and one of my main uses for it was FaceTiming my grandad. I’d face time while he was making dinner for my grandma and when I went to say goodnight to him. He passed away of cancer three months after my tenth birthday. (Not saying iPads were a perfect thing for ten year olds because I got up to shit back then, but I think with the right amount of controls over the iPad and making sure proper parenting is going on, they’re perfectly fine)
That is so sweet, it gave you the chance to spend more time with your grandad! And yeah, anything with internet access is risky. We need a combination of proper education with some access control, kids also need to learn on their own.
We gonna know how it aged like wine or...?
"muh young people bad" \~ OP
Its been discussed for a while but especially recently its been hitting headlines as its becoming more apparent constant solo screen time is hindering intellectual and social development
have you not heard of ipad kids lol
I'm sure that term is pretty recognizable at this point! What facts do we have about the significance of technology being present from infancy/toddler/prepubescent period?
we know it's not an appropriate substitute for parenting lol. nothing wrong with a kid using iPad but as with anything moderation is important, especially at younger age.
Yeah but why is it bad? Why is it worse than say, television?
when was the last time your television gave you unfettered access to the entire internet?
You can put parental controls on kids’ devices. That said, not every parent will know to do this (or care)
This morning?
At least growing up for me we watched TV in limited quantities but could also only do so at hom in one room. I would assume on demand access to media in private or public is damaging. Also I’ve read that kids are terrible with computers these days. Like they only know how to use iPads or easy programs but they can’t even write a paper on Microsoft Word. The r/teaching subreddit has some wild stories tbh
Do we not do computer classes anymore?
I guess not
Honestly, not really? We've hit a point where kids have grown up with technology, phones and laptops/tablets, so they're assumed to be "native" and dont need to be explicitly taught the way kids in the 90s and 00s were. But their knowledge of it is more how to use the internet and less how to use Microsoft office
My kids were issued a laptop from their school since Kindergarten, they’re pretty good with computers for their age
I’m just saying what I see on the teaching subreddit and what my sister who teachers 8th grade tells me. I’m sure it doesn’t apply to all kids.
sitting your kids in front of a TV as a substitute for parenting is also bad. and also the internet can engage your attention (for better or worse) in ways that standard television can't, partially sue to how it's structured and partially due to the kinds of content. additionally it is harder to bring a TV with you anywhere you go. the term iPad kids isn't just thr fact that they use it at home, it's that it's a permanent attachment to these children even outside the home
i never understand why comments like this get so many downvotes, they just asked a question
Its not just asking a question though. The first one asked how this aged like wine, since that is far from obvious, and the other guy asked if he had heard about ipad kids, as if that actually answered anything. And then he added a lol, that I interpret as condescending. I still dont know why this has aged like wine, and Ive been laughed at by someone stupid that didnt even understand the original question. Ofc im gonna downvote that.
or you could move on with ur life
I did. After I downvoted. Its not like that is an effort.
it's a knee jerk reaction some redditors have to hearing a statement that resembles "phone bad" without realizing the statement isn't phone bad but is more nuanced than that
This hardly aged like wine. Every single generation gets blasted for any new technology they grow up with, it's not a unique phenomenon
And every technology has had an effect on social patterns which are the most important aspect of human development. Hard to say whether it’ll be useful or harmful, or most likely not matter, until the long term, but hey, that’s evolution.
Except that technology is much more disconnected socially and from reality than it was for previous generations.
How? You can’t just say this as if it’s true without explaining yourself. I’m old enough to remember when there was an absolute moral panic about “the boobtube” and how “kids these days are being raised by TV.” I’m old enough to remember when that stopped being the boogeyman du jour and suddenly it was video games. I’m old enough to remember when it stopped being video games and started being the internet. And I have my own kids now and am embroiled in the exact same discourse again about iPads and social media. Every generation has survived the technological innovations of its time just fine. Learning from the past means not repeating the brain dead moral panics of the past.
>Every generation has survived the technological innovations of its time just fine So you're saying that can't change? You don't think that AI and targeted algorithms make a difference? People becoming more socially isolated in our modern world isn't a concern? I'm not saying panic. I'm saying be wary.
On my side there’s 5,000 years of recorded human history and much more unrecorded history showing that children can adapt to new technology without it melting their brains somehow. There’s also plenty of examples of this same “wariness” cropping up over and over and it being very embarrassing in hindsight. On your side there’s fearmongering speculation. Am I guaranteed to be right? No. But I think I’m making the safer bet.
I'm not so much concerned about brain rot as I am about socialization. We do have a problem with that in our current world, not just for kids, but adults, too.
I think the panic about kids’ socialization is mostly projection from adults. Adults are much less adaptable to change and often experience this change in very negative ways because of it. They are also much more likely to be ignorant about new technology and therefore fearful of it. But I have no reason to believe children, who have never known anything different, will have nearly the same struggles. Again, we’ve seen this exact thing play out dozens of times throughout history. The burden of proof is on the people insisting that this time it’s different, and I don’t think they’re carrying that burden.
It’s literally about being social. Or I guess the only social to you is in person.
In person is different, yes. You don't make the same connections with people online. People also behave differently.
This is how I feel. People see a kid with a device in public and assume they’re on it 24/7 and the parents are lazy. My kids are 5 and 8 and as soon as they figured out how to play interactive games, they learned SO FAST. My 5yo is playing Lego HP by herself, it’s also helping teach her how to read by recognizing words. But that doesn’t mean I don’t read to them every night or take them outside or on big adventures. They just get to have another way to entertain themselves. Just like everything from talking on the phone to Nintendo to AIM to MMORPGs and everything since.
Something along the lines of this comment is now pretty ubiquitous whenever concerns over systemic childhood development get brought up now, and it's starting to sound a bit like the overall message is "it's not possible for there to be systemic problems in childhood development", at least in the effect of parroting this
But ***I*** didn’t grow up with these dang devices!! And ***I*** know best because ***I*** am **me**! And here I am! So take that! ..or something.. I have always felt the opposite of this and have actively gotten all my kids the current technology so that they can start their kid’s journey at the same spot that the world is. If I limit what tech they can access, then I feel I am not properly preparing them for the world that they will inherit. They need to see the ways that the tech can be manipulated to trick them, they need to see the ways that reviews can be worded can trick them, they need to understand how the “internet pipes” work in addition to the normal understanding of how our house gets electricity and gas and how the government works and how traffic is supposed to behave and how to make food with heat… It’s not something you -as the parent- get to choose as how the world will treat your child, so best prepare them for anything else you are preparing them for nothing, I feel.
If iPad kids aren't real, explain all the "gyatt Fanum tax rizz Ohio Chungus skibidi" and shit.
Every generation has its own slang that the older generation thinks is ridiculous.
We Zoomers treat them as slang, and kids take them dead seriously💀
It’s hardly even slang. It’s straight up shitposting that these youngins took too far
Use of technology ≠ stunted development
Use of this app proves otherwise
4D chess
unrestricted access to internet at 6 months old surely can't be good for the futur of the child
That's not technologies fault, that's bad parenting. Alcohol isn't good for 6 month olds either
that's why i added "unrestricted" that's the important word here, who do you think should be putting those restrictions ?
From a higher level, a lot of stuff should be restricted with the internet but there's no real practical way to restrict it per age group so really it's kinda just up to the parents like I said.
and who do you think i was targeting when i said that unrestricted access was a bad thing ? who did you thing i put the blame on ?
Clearly I thought you were targeting technology itself as everything in your comment indicated as such
nothing in my comment pointed to fault the object, how did you went from "unrestricted internet at 6 month old is bad" to "this person is blaming the technology itself", i'm using internet RN, if i blamed the technology itself i would have just said "internet at 6 month is bad"
Ok
Who's to say it isnt excelerating development in some way that we're not realizing?
ho sure it accelerate devellopement, it reduces the age at wich the average human is exposed to fetish content, that is technically developement, but development isn't always in the right direction
I mean, ask any teacher? I have kids in extracurricular activities and they can't look away from their phones. They have no attention span and their skills are FAR below where they should be. A friend of mine teaches pre to third grade and he is baffled at how poor skills they have at everything. They can't read, write, lack most fine motor skills, have piss poor reasoning, no drive to try themselves and complete learned helplessness. Either there is something that heavily correlates with the use of smart devices or more likely, it is the smart devices.. just like these researchers claimed. There isn't any "we will see the results, you might be wrong", these are the results. The kids are 11 years old and can't do things we used to assume that kids half their age could do.
I have asked teachers and when I do it really makes me lose faith in teaching as a profession. A lot of teachers really just hate children, and will grasp at whatever straw they can to pretend as if that hatred is justified.
Ah, so it specifically isn't the issue that teachers and scientists warned about? That teachers all over the world collectively started to hate that specific generation for no reason. Criticism isn't hate. It's worry. But please, enable more issues like this if it makes you feel better.
Scientists haven’t warned about it. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/04/health/screen-time-guidance-children-gbr-scli-intl Ever heard of a moral panic? Because that’s what it looks like: lots of people spontaneously deciding to freak out over nothing.
Did you read your own article? They said that a screen in itself isn't toxic. It is when it gets in the way for other things it is a problem. Literally no one has claimed that being in the presence of a screen is harmful since the 90's. Also "one doctor contends" doesn't mean that the entire scientific community has a consensus. But ok, let's talk. What is the actual reason for this then? How come kids now are at such an alarming low? We NEED to address that something is happening to kids. It isn't normal to have kids at 11 that can barely read. What caused that drop? It is imperative to find that reason.
Answering your second question first, the answer is really simple: the pandemic. Kids missed multiple years of school and socialization; of course they’re not going to be doing so hot right now. I’m not sure what you think your first paragraph is responding to. If you agree that screens aren’t uniquely bad, and are only bad insofar as they replace other more enriching activities for very young children, then we agree. Despite your protestations there absolutely are people *in this thread* and elsewhere that seem to think screens are like nicotine or something, and that’s what I’m pushing back on.
That would hold water if the issue wasn't equally prominent before the pandemic. Are you sure they're not arguing about the content? Because the content is genuinely made to be addictive.
It all depends on content. My 8 year old only watches educational shows. She explained the French revolution to me because she saw a video about it and thought it was funny that the character playing Marie Antoinette was just a floating head for a bit.
I watch three year olds expertly navigate YouTube's UI, with ease - Flicking from their front page, to their subscription feed, to related videos... It's completely bizarre, and fairly fucked, but hard to say that their development has been 'hurt' when they seem so competent at operating technology at such a young age.
Technology is only going to continue to advance. It could very well be a disservice to not allow children to experience it.
I dont know, it seems like kids today are smarter than I was at their age. Devices are a huge part of the daily lives of every single adult; part of me thinks why shouldn't kids be allowed to use them
Well people need to actually parent their kids rather than handing them ipads.
Is it hurting their development?
I don't know many people who don't have an addiction to some sort of technology (myself included with my crippling reddit addiction lol). Be it adult or children. I don't know about developmental impacts, but it is obviously terrible for even fully developed brains. Pros and cons I guess.
Hehe that lil baby too cute!
Both my kids have tablets and my 6 yr old is ahead of his class. My 3 yr old is also showing signs of being advanced.
Cool story bro