Recent comments in /f/science

healthierlurker t1_j79qqz1 wrote

I’m a parent. 5 minutes to get a shot? Sure. But my sons aren’t watching shows until at least 2 and then maybe that will be for 45 minutes a day. My brother’s son isn’t even allowed to look at screens. 1 is too young for TV absent a good reason like a medical procedure.

0

healthierlurker t1_j79q4bv wrote

One of my 4 month olds will be glued to the TV if it’s on in the background or a phone screen if it’s in front of him. When they were younger I liked to have YouTube videos with music playing on the TV during the day but now we have to keep the TV off whenever they’re facing it. We don’t intend to give them any screen-time until they’re 2+ and it will be in accordance with available guidance.

6

GGG_Eflat t1_j79n1p7 wrote

This is interesting, but not surprising.

I just wrote a paper (for a class, not publication) summarizing research that showed one of the largest predictors for specific learning disabilities is if the child watches an average of 4 or more hours of daily screen time in their toddler and preschool years.

5

Feudamonia t1_j79jg85 wrote

But the brain doesn't change when you change your beliefs, and neither does the nervous system. We can see different neural activity but the mechanism that creates that activity doesn't change.

Imagine the brain is a DJ's beat box. Different thinking would be like a different song being played but the beat box doesn't change.

1

schnitzelfeffer t1_j79j96a wrote

It's true! It's actually really interesting to see the progression in how he viewed the world. Here is a PDF link for more in depth research and a study of his work.

>Monet's art focused on capturing the effects of color and light on the environment. His visual deterioration was probably accelerated by his insistence on outdoor painting. >The works of Claude Monet after 1908, when cataract is definitively and devastatingly installed, heavy predominance of yellow brown vibrant colors and also a clear and continuous process of blurred vision, with blurry, misshapen paintings.
>There is also a clear color change that occurred after the late surgical intervention, with a clear difference in color perception by the artist in both eyes, the operated right eye and the left one, which he refused to operate.
>There is no doubt about his diagnosis, nor that his work eternally portrays the visual effects of untreated cataracts in the elderly parient.

19

TarthenalToblakai t1_j79itya wrote

Yeah this could very well be more of correlation than causation. I'd wager it's, in a way, both -- a complex intersecting network of factors and feedback loops. As I described in more detail in my other comment on this thread.

But yeah, any straightforward simple causative narratives should be met with critical analysis and skepticism. If there's one lesson to learn from science it's that matters are rarely that simple.

2

TarthenalToblakai t1_j79i7m5 wrote

As per usual: correlation is not necessarily causation.

Is too much screen time the cause, or is it an underlying symptom itself?

ADHD, for example, inherently comes with executive dysfunction, emotional regulation, impulse control issues, etc. It also drives a compulsive need for dopamine and stimulation seeking, in turn making one more susceptible to addictions (whether it be TV, video games, gambling, drugs, sex, etc.)

Furthermore, it has a strong genetic component. If a kid has it chances are at least one of their parents also has it. Executive dysfunction in adults leads to greater propensity to get exhausted and burnt out more quickly, and the same dopamine seeking, meaning on average they may be more inclined to let their kids have free reign of screens to give them a break.

And of course there's hundreds of other factors and variables. Single parent households would have similar issues with burn out, plus just needing to keep kids occupied while you cook, do laundry, etc. That (and higher likelihood of poverty on a single income) could incentivize more reliance on microwavable dinners and fast food, adding the possibility that less than ideal nutrition could play a part.

Also: is it an abundance of screen time in particular, or rather a lack of human connection and communication? Would it make a difference if their screen time was replaced with reading books or playing with toys, as long as they still have the same lack of human interaction? And what if the screentime includes human interaction such as playing a multiplayer video game or watching and discussing shows with siblings or friends?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe that there's no causation there at all. There likely is. I just think describing it in terms of a simple straightforward narrative isn't wise. Realistically it's more of a complex intersecting network of factors and feedback loops.

63

favouritemistake t1_j79h5jd wrote

Why do you guys think I meant consciousness or the mind when I said brain?

Edit: actual question. What am I missing here, or was I just misunderstood due to something about the word choice?

2

favouritemistake t1_j79gcyq wrote

I don’t totally get your analogy but I’m aware of the difference between mind and brain. I said the brain changes, not the mind. Beyond just the brain, yes, the rest of the nervous system changes too.

1