<p>
</p>
<p>[Doctors</a> Raise Red Flag: Young Children Should Avoid Using Tablets « CBS Baltimore](<a href=“http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/11/14/red-flag-doctors-warn-tablets-can-actually-hurt-a-toddlers-developing-body/]Doctors”>Doctors Raise Red Flag: Young Children Should Avoid Using Tablets - CBS Baltimore)</p>
<p>Anyone agree with this?</p>
<p>Yeah, my parents were told I shouldn’t be allowed to wear sneakers more than one hour a day because they would ruin my feet, and shouldn’t be allowed to use a ballpoint pen because it would ruin my hand. (They were right!)</p>
<p>Dr. Spock also said babies shouldn’t be allowed to sleep on their backs (advice that likely caused tens of thousands of childhood deaths.)</p>
<p>I’d like to see the evidence. Like a double-blind study.</p>
<p>Young children should be interacting with live caring human beings. When the child or the parents are plugged into media, it diminishes these interactions.</p>
<p>I think that pediatricians have always said no TV before two, so this is seems to be an extension of that advice. And yes, I agree with it.</p>
<p>Mini, if you haven’t read the book by Wilson titled “The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture” you might consider it.</p>
<p>Since my kids are college/grad school, this isn’t something I have to worry about. Hugs to the parents of young children. Lots of stuff to wade through/weigh and evaluate.</p>
<p>Personally, I would err on the side of more human interaction/less technology, but I’m a product of my upbringing.</p>
<p>I know it well, thank you. And plenty of others as well. </p>
<p>And I’d like to see the evidence. We’ve had young kids using computers since Apple II. So there’s plenty of people around for a 25-year retrospective study. Same for TV. (and most pediatricians are absolutely ignorant of the level of human interaction that happens through tablets. I see fathers traveling on business or in the military actively communicating with their two-year olds via Skype at a level absolutely impossible in the pediatricians’ generation.)</p>
<p>As far as I’m aware, there is no better evidence for this view than there was for the sneakers and ballpoint pen advice (as much as both of them absolutely ruined my life. ;))</p>
<p>The pediatricians fell for the Dr. Spock thing, too, resulting in tens of thousands of dead children.</p>
<p>One thing we can say for sure: hungry kids have trouble.</p>
<p>I hate seeing little kids plugged in, it’s just so wrong. They need interaction with others, with nature, with their imaginary friend, with a beam of light hitting the floor, with something that stimulates all five senses. Too often we see kids that are plugged in and think of them as “positively engaged”, or “well focused”. They are trapped. </p>
<p>There’s many, many books out there with evidence. “Unplugging the Plug-in Drug”, “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television”, “The Flickering Mind”, “Amusing ourselves to Death”, “The Shallows”, etc.</p>
<p>This researcher died recently. He was surprised to find how technological multi-tasking was detrimental.</p>
<p>[Clifford</a> Nass dies at 55; Stanford scholar of multitasking - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/clifford-nass-dies-at-55-stanford-scholar-of-multitasking/2013/11/09/e6401576-496a-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html]Clifford”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/clifford-nass-dies-at-55-stanford-scholar-of-multitasking/2013/11/09/e6401576-496a-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html)</p>
<p>I agree, greenwitch. It just feels wrong, and risky. Kids don’t know how to be bored anymore, or to find simple, imaginative ways to occupy their time. I don’t care if that makes me sound old. I don’t think we know FOR SURE that all this technology is more beneficial than detrimental to young kids. Everyone who buys into the idea that it’s good is really using their kids as lab mice, and by the time some results are in it will be too late for a do over.</p>
<p>“here’s many, many books out there with evidence. “Unplugging the Plug-in Drug”, “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television”, “The Flickering Mind”, “Amusing ourselves to Death”, “The Shallows”, etc.”</p>
<p>I have read all four. The evidence is wholly lacking - it is mostly speculation. Again - we have plenty of folks who grew up on Apple IIs, and those who didn’t. But no one dares do a study (because I think we’ll find out the obvious: that those who used computers as kids became more adept, did better in school, did better in college, have higher incomes, and fewer divorces. Don’t believe me? That’s fine. Show me a study.)</p>
<p>How about studying father/child bonding - one set with tablets using Skype, the others without. It’s an easy study, isn’t it? </p>
<p>I have loved what I have seen about the experiments where computers are dropped on the kids in poor rural communities in Ethiopia. A group called One Laptop Per Child decided to perform an experiment. They found two isolated rural villages about 50 miles from Addis Ababa, each of which had about 20 “first-grade” children, ages 4-7. The first village was on the rim of a volcanic crater at 11,000 feet high. The other was in the Rift Valley. Both were extremely poor communities, where availability of food and clean water are precarious. None of the children had previously seen printed materials (in either English or Amharic), road signs, or even packaging that had words on it. Most of their parents are illiterate. </p>
<p>The program dropped off closed boxes containing tablet computers, preloaded with alphabet training games, e-books, movies, cartoons, paintings, and other programs. The tablets have a solar charging system. The boxes were taped shut. There were no instructions. Within four minutes, the first child had opened the box, found the on-off switch, and powered it up. Within five days, every child was using the computers, averaging 47 apps per child (which is way more than I’ve yet to manage on my smartphone!). Within two weeks, the kids were singing ABC songs in the village, and learning to write English.</p>
<p>By mistake, the media lab that had prepared the computers had disabled the camera. Within five months, the children had hacked Android, figured out the camera, and gotten around efforts to freeze desktop settings. Every child had customized the desktops, and each tablet looked different, even though software had been installed to prevent the kids from doing so.</p>
<p>Prior to this experiment, One Laptop Per Child had been delivering computers to schools, with teachers and textbooks, etc., etc. Now that the kids are reading and learning just fine, the chief technology officer is questioning whether the schools and teachers are really necessary for the learning enterprise at all? </p>
<p>There were no reports of children with ADHD, or learning disabilities, or of “slow-learners”. There were no rewards or punishments. No gold stars or homework. No adults “helping them with their work”. No testing, nor any test preparation. No bureaucracy, no administrators, no school board members, no school buildings, no school taxes. No real estate killings. No little desks and little chairs.</p>
<p>Just a spirit of inquiry, creativity, and a quest for discovery. Just what children, no, just what people are about, until they are beaten down by the forces of “education”. And, yes, their brains are changed forever. Just like my feet. <a href=“http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-18/lifestyle/36475284_1_tablet-computers-apps-kids[/url]”>http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-18/lifestyle/36475284_1_tablet-computers-apps-kids</a> (I truly believe that the leading stunters of children’s brains are schools - but that’s another topic.)</p>
<p>I agree it is too late for a do-over. We really shouldn’t allow children, especially males (because of testosterone poisoning) to use computers or watch TV before age 45, as their brains aren’t fully formed. (After that, dementia sets in.)</p>
<p>It’s an interesting anecdote, but I wonder if those 8 year olds would have had so much curiosity and initiative if they’d been plugged in since they were toddlers. Maybe then they would just be in love with staring at flickering lights and pressing buttons while drooling slightly. But that’s OK, you can get a drool-proof case for your iPhone so your baby can chew on it.</p>
<p>If they had been communicating via tablet with their daddies? You really wonder?</p>
<p>I do doubt very much if they would have had that much curiosity and initiative had they been in school.</p>
<p>Mini, you are lumping all children in with children under the age of 2. It’s not the same thing. No one is saying that older children shouldn’t use computers or other screens.</p>
<p>Babies and toddlers do not need to be glued to screens. It’s seductively addicting. There was an article in the NY Times a couple years ago about this, how it is easy to hand the phone to a toddler to keep him/her quiet. But then some kids are screaming for the phone and related games!</p>
<p>There is also an affect on babies and toddlers when they are in the room with TV and computer games. They watch what’s going on and they have vulnerable, developing brains. It’s very important to the future of all society. And it’s a lot more important than tennis shoes and even babies sleeping on their backs. And no need to have such an attitude about Dr. Spock’s position on that. It was accepted practice at the time. He wasn’t being malicious. I actually received that same advice for my daughter in the '80s.</p>
<p>I specifically used the example of toddlers under the age of two communicating with their fathers, and other people via Skype. </p>
<p>Dr. Spock wasn’t being malicious - that’s exactly the problem. He was pontificating without scientific evidence. Pediatricians and parents around the world took his advice. Tens of thousands of children died as a result. </p>
<p>So let’s see some evidence - let’s see what the kids are like 5, 10, 15, 20 years later. Let them start with the Apple II study - it’s easy to do. My kids used it ages 2-3 (the little one, not so much - she’d never sit still - the “scientific” community would have put her on drugs, if we’d allowed it. We’ve got an excellent long-term study of that one - <a href=“http://www.nber.org/papers/w19105[/url]”>http://www.nber.org/papers/w19105</a> ) Then I remember the coke baby hoax, and the permanent, debilitating damage being done to those oh so vulnerable, developing brains. NOT. <a href=“Crack Babies: The Epidemic That Wasn't - The New York Times”>Crack Babies: The Epidemic That Wasn't - The New York Times;
<p>The sneaker advice was true, though. (If you want to protect kids’ brains, you might consider doing something about Coca-Cola.)</p>
<p>Of course it’s one thing for a toddler under two to talk to a dad in the military or far-away grandparents or even mom or dad at work. That could be OK; it’s interacting with a loved one and talking back and forth interacting verbally. It’s not the same as playing games on a cell phone or watching endless hours of TV or violent video games.</p>
<p>I’m a fan of OLPC, and I think that technology can have a huge positive impact for learning, even in children.</p>
<p>The problem for those under 2, though, is not about learning. It’s about stimulation. At that age, children need a variety of interactive stimulation of all of the senses, not just sight. The tablet time takes the place of the sort of interactive free play that under-2s have with the world and with other people that is necessary for proper brain development at that age.</p>
<p>mini, I am not sure where your snarky defense of technology-above-all is coming from, but it’s a bit bizarre.</p>
<p>I also think comparing the Apple II–a stationary computer with limited interactivity–to today’s tablets is a bit of a stretch. I recently spent the day with a couple of young girls, ages 4 and 5, and their moms—an entire long day where they had free use of a beautiful, safe yard, lots of toys, and a swimming pool. The four-year-old came from a family that limited her access to technology, and she wanted to play with the other girl, invent games, and so on. The five-year-old was addicted to her iPad and some particular game she was playing. She only wanted to “play” with the other girl if she would sit with her and look at the iPad. She would go up to all the adults and brag about what “level” she had passed on some game, and when her mom tried to take the device away she would pitch a fit. It was almost like withdrawal.</p>
<p>There is a need for common sense and moderation in all things, IMO. My 4 year old grandson enjoys playing with my iPad (among other things he enjoys). He MOST loves it, though, when I sit WITH him to play…whatever game or book he is playing with on there at the time. And it’s not just tapping on things…there are educational games where the child traces letters and/or numbers on the screen…where they say things or make noise…etc. </p>
<p>Of COURSE no child should be left for hours to entertain themselves with a tablet (or anything else for that matter!). But I do believe there are benefits for children being able to use these things appropriately and with supervision. It’s fascinating to watch him figure it out…</p>
<p>As with any technology it can be used for evil or for good. I can use my TV to watch the History or Discovery Channels, or the Kardashians. Same thing with iPads.</p>
<p>I think many of you are assuming that the children you’re concerned about are plugged in all day long, which isn’t the case with any of the young children I know. Balance is the key.</p>