10 reasons why the “10 reasons to ban handheld devices” article is wrong, stupid

parenting, technology, things I hate 11 Minutes

There is a horrible article making the rounds right now from HuffPost written by the new self-appointed leader of the “Save the Children” crusade, Cris Rowan. And this time, she’s after our iPhones! Get the pitchforks Cleetus, we’re gonna have an angry mob!

I feel horrible for even doing this, because rule number 1 of the Internet is “Don’t Feed the Trolls”. Still, if you want to see what bad science looks like when it’s covered in citations you should go read this article (nostrikethat, 2014).

The short version (although it’s hard to summarize a listicle) is that “technology” is destroying the brains of our children and OH GOD WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? Technology is defined as “cell phones, internet, iPads, TV”(The stupid article, 2014), which is good because I would hate to have to rip out my toilets. Lucky for the Nostrikethat household, Poop Vanishing Technology is exempt!

So far.

There are many things wrong with this article. There is hysteria. There are selective readings of research. There’s entirely too much source citation for HuffPost, which, let’s face it, is not known for it’s scholarly crowd, considering the most popular article right now is about “Hot Facebook Mom”.

I mean serious, it makes People magazine look like the Economist
It makes TMZ look like the Foreign Policy Review

It was the ol’ “beating me to death with the APA style guide” that set off my BS detector. Like when people use the word “utilize”: consciously or not, they’re trying to puff themselves up a bit, to inject some credibility. Or, like when a guy tries to grow a beard to seem older and wiser, when he’s really just a horrible mess of a human being and is trying to exert some control on a seemingly random existence.

Which is totally not what I’m doing.

What I am doing is rolling through all ten points, because I needed to write something today and opportunities like this don’t come along very often.

1. Rapid Brain growth

The claim is that overexposure to technologies (again, “cell phones, internet, iPads, TV”) “overstimulates” the brains of children, causing a whole host of Bad Things. A few problems with this claim. First, the source cited is from April of 2004. In 2004, this is what state of the art looked like:

Hello Moto

So the definition of “technologies” can really only mean TV, because that’s the only one that was INVENTED when the study was completed.

Second, the actual study itself only applies to TV.

Oops.

You might also be interested to know that “technologies” are associated with tantrums in children.

As are Cheerios with milk on them and not in a separate bowl.

And getting out of bed.

And putting on pants.

Really, pretty much anything that happens in the vicinity of children is associated with tantrums.

Oh no, my argument has been undone.

Woe.

This entry sets the modus operandi for the rest of the article. First, a fact is presented– in this case, children’s brains triple in size between zero and 2. Then, a claim is placed ever so gently next to the fact, so some of that magic Truth Pollen can flake off on to it. The rest is, as my professors used to say, left as an exercise for the reader.

2. Delayed Development

“Technology use restricts movement” she clai-wait, what?

No it doesn’t. You can’t just put a claim like that out there and act like it’s common sense, and therefore true. First of all, have you ever seen a small child jump on the couch while watching TV? It is the most frustratingly exhausting thing ever. In fact, while we’re making spurious claims, I’m going to claim that the existence of the phrase “FOR THE TWELFTH TIME, STOP JUMPING ON THE COUCH” disproves this point.

Second, she makes the claim that the use of technology by children under 12 is detrimental to child development and learning by citing the noted expert, herself.

SHE CITES HERSELF.

The supporting research she cites to support her claim… is her research.

This is occasionally allowed in academia if one is a recognized expert in the field, but unfortunately I think the only person that really recognizes Ms. Rowan’s expertise is Ms. Rowan, and the field is a cow pasture.  

This whole line of reasoning sounds suspiciously like my toddler trying to convince me he can have potato chips… because he can have potato chips.

“If I can have cookies, I can have cookies, right Dadeee?”

3. Epidemic Obesity

Ah yes, the old “TV makes us fat” claim, gussied up for the modern age. It’s never really been that terrifying (possibly because we learned it while watching TV) so it was due for an overhaul, I guess. Here’s the problem with this claim.

It is absolutely impossible that this claim is true.

No amount of screen time will generate calories in humans.

BOOM! SCIENCE!

If there is one thing the fractured world of food science can agree on, it’s that eating food “is associated with” gaining weight.

Will staring at a screen all day make you feel like a lazy fat slob? Absolutely…but, and this is a crucial point, it won’t make you actually fat. You’ll feel horrible and you’ll have a whole host of other medical problems associated with a sedentary lifestyle, but the act of sitting on your arse all day doesn’t make the fat appear, it’s the eating-more-Fritos-than-the-energy-you-expend-clicking-the-remote that’s making the fat magically appear on your waistline.

Or the insulin-imbalance-from-over-consumption-of-refined-sugars.

Or practically anything else.

Genetics.

God– if He wants to smite thee in slow motion.

Life is hard enough when you’re a fat kid, now you’ve gotta be fat and bored too?

4. Sleep Deprivation

Ms. Rowan employs a different device here. First we are numbed with statistics: 60% of parents don’t monitor technology, and 75% of children are allowed technology in their bedrooms. Then, cite a study (from Boston College) that states 75% of children ages 9 and 10 are sleep deprived to the point where their grades suffer. You see the connection right? They have technology in the bedroom, and this proves that technology is causing them to not get enough sleep!

The citation was a little harder to dig up, but the source she cites is a BBC article reporting on the Boston College study. She omits one crucial bit of reporting, however. “What the study does not show is why young people are missing out on sleep“.

Here’s another, equally likely explanation:

9 and 10 year old children in industrialized nations have two parents that work, so they don’t get home from daycare until 6, don’t eat dinner until 7, then spend two hours doing homework, and then spend an hour actually talking to their parents and going to bed at 10, so they can get up at 6 the next morning so the can be dropped off at before-school care again.

Or you know, iPads are bad.

iBads.

doublefacepalm

5. Mental illness

The claim is that technology overuse is “implicated as a causal factor in rising rates of child depression, anxiety, attachment disorder, attention deficit, autism, bipolar disorder, psychosis and problematic child behavior (Bristol University 2010, Mentzoni 2011, Shin 2011, Liberatore 2011, Robinson 2008).” Sounds serious, and there are 5 citations!

IVZAS

The Bristol University citation leads to a web page describing a report published in the American Journal of Pediatrics. So far so good, this one might check out! Then we get to this gem in the source: [emphasis mine]

“According to the activity monitor, the children in the study who spent more time sedentary had better psychological scores overall. Those children who did more moderate physical activity fared better in certain psychological areas, including emotional and peer problems, but fared worse in some areas related to behaviour, including hyperactivity.”

Fail

According to the article, sitting still makes your kid less crazy. Seems true enough, when the kids sit still it makes me less crazy, and I don’t see why I should get all of the psychological benefit.

Now I’m not going to go so far as to make an actual claim, but I have a hypothesis that sitting still correlates more closely to technology use than exercising, excluding Facebook-obsessed Run-My-Map-heads.

Then it says [again, emphasis mine] “Lead author Dr Angie Page from the University of Bristol’s Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences said: ‘Whilst low levels of screen viewing may not be problematic, we cannot rely on physical activity to ‘compensate’ for long hours of screen viewing.'”

Honestly, I didn’t bother to read the rest of the cited sources. I think the damage has been done here.

6. Aggression

vkKyM

Something something Grand Theft Auto V something something.

Why don’t video game critics understand that games have ratings on them, and they actually mean something? Grand Theft Auto is rated “M for My God I can’t believe she trotted out a game made for adults as an example of violent media for children”.

There is actually some very good research behind the consumption of “violent” TV, Films, and Video Games and how it provably affects girls and boys by making them behave more aggressively. The mistake Ms. Rowan makes is conflating the media with the medium.

While I do sometimes want to reach through the TV and sucker-punch Elmo (possibly due to my consumption of violent media), I haven’t observed that reaction in any of my children. Nor am I surprised when the little boy doing karate chops and flying kicks in the super market is wearing a Power Rangers jacket.

None of these observations, though, mean we should ban technology use in children. If we’re going to invent imaginary pointless bans to support, why not ban the violent shows that lead to agression? In fact, I would support a ban of all youth programming that’s not Teletubbies, except that I think it would lead to an across the board increase in pot brownie consumption.

 7. Digital dementia

The claim is that the technology gives us the ADD. Again, the weakness is that studies are cited to make a claim that is not supported by the study.

In this case, the key study is from 2004. “The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that early television exposure (at ages 1 and 3) is associated with attentional problems at age 7“. Again, TV exposure, not exposure to all handhelds. Second, I found another study from 2006. The title? “There is no meaningful relationship between television exposure and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.” Isn’t this fun?

usingthatword

Actually, this is kind of fun. On Ms. Rowan’s site there’s a link to another study by one of the authors of the 2004 study, Dimitri A. Christakis, MD, MPH that he published in 2011 called “The Effects of Fast-Paced Cartoons.” This is a great example of how academic papers always say “…and further research is required” — and then further research is performed. I would say that Dr. Christakis is actually an expert in this field, and here’s what he has to say in his 2011 paper:

 “However, the quantity of media consumed has been an unduly emphasized part of the story. It is not that quantity is unimportant, but the effects of media are mediated more by what is watched than how much is watched.’ Simply put, television is both good and bad: there are good programs and bad ones. And, what makes programs good or bad has to do not only with the content itself but with what in communications research are known as the formal features of that content. Some sequences are naturally paced (eg. human-Muppet interactions on Sesame Street), and some are rapid (eg. SpongeBob SquarePants). Others occur in what seems like slow motion (eg, Mr Roger’s Neighborhood). In addition to the pace of the show, formal features include the edits and cuts. Some shows change scenes more than 3 times per minute, whereas others have greater continuity. The “overstimulation hypothesis” is based on the theory that the surreal pacing and sequencing of some shows might tax the brain or parts of it, leading to short-term (or long-term) deficits.”

So here’s the same expert cited by Ms. Rowan theorizing that the “what” that is being consumed is more important than the “how much” (let alone the “on what”), and is seeking to understand why.

He must not be credible after all!

8. Addictions

Edit: After publishing this post in the wee hours of the morning, a few folks have commented that I missed #8 in the original article. Thanks y’all!

See #2, above (NST, 2014). Writing words does not make them automatically become true, even with liberal use of APA style.

This is the problem with signing yourself up to write a list article… you either end up with shifty list entries just to make it a “Top 10”, or else you get fed up and, halfway through writing, realize your idea wasn’t that good and it’s just easier to change the title to “Top 5” because no one will notice anyway.

Second, of all the claims one could make about addiction to technology (which is not really a thing), claiming:

“As parents attach more and more to technology, they are detaching from their children”

can only make you nod your head in agreement if you’ve never actually met a parent or a child. If that were true, teenagers all over the world would be begging their parents to spend more time on Facebook.

original image via sheknows.com
original image via sheknows.com

Third, as noted by alert comment-er and Hamlet-lookalike egthegreat:

SHE CITES HERSELF. Again.

Thanks eg!

9. Radiation Emission

10. Unsustainable

This isn’t even a real reason, she’s just making a plea to THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Again.

Don’t Feed the Trolls

Ms. Rowan is a far more successful blogger than I could ever dream of. She has succeeded driving mad crazy social media traffic, likes and shares. I don’t even make any advertising revenue from this site, because my lifetime site views are still in the 4 digits.

She drives attention like it’s her JOB. Which, if you read her bio from her site, it is:

“A frequent guest on both radio and television, Cris Rowan is a well known and impassioned speaker on the topic of the impact of technology on child development and learning. Cris has provided over 200 workshops to health and education professionals throughout North America, and authors the monthly Zone’in Child Development Series newsletter. Cris is CEO of Zone’in Programs Inc. offering products, workshops, training and consultation services to reverse the effects of technology on children. Cris is author of the following policy initiatives: Unplug – Don’t Drug, Creating Sustainable Futures Program, and Linking Corporations to Communities. Cris recently completed her first book Virtual Child – The terrifying truth about what technology is doing to children. Cris promotes the concept “Balanced Technology Management” where adults manage balance between activities children need to grow and succeed with technology use.”

Really, I have none of that. I’m not a CEO. I don’t have any workshops, products, or consultative services. I’m not terrified, and I certainly haven’t written a book about how not terrified I am…

I have a lot to learn. I need to pick something that a lot of people don’t understand, like technology, and figure out how it’s hurting children–because it has to, right? EVERYTHING hurts children (except Teletubbies).

Then I need to spend a lot of time on the internet doing keyword searches for articles that support my position, and put those into a list so I can tell people who disagree with me that I have “150 sources” that support me.

It doesn’t really matter that my sources, in some cases, don’t actually say what I’m saying they say, or even contradict my position– the important thing is I have a extensive bibliography, because nobody but grumpy old basement dwellers with erratic facial hair ever actually reads the source articles.

Then, I need to prostitute myself for clicks, because let’s face it we’re all prostitutes around here and I’ve gotta get mine.

Those speaking tours aren’t going to book themselves right?

Published by Nostrikethat

Published

288 thoughts on “10 reasons why the “10 reasons to ban handheld devices” article is wrong, stupid”

    1. They want our children to adhere the restricted learning policy because the internet doesn’t care how much you can pay for the learning games (most good one have a free versions);

      These kind of studies are published for the aim of fear-mongering and controlling our kids through the brain washing of parents.

      Like

    1. Thank you! I loved your post on trusting kids, you have a new subscriber!

      On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 1:37 PM, No, Strike That wrote:

      >

      Like

    2. Yes, I agree. It’s wonderful to see two sides of a topic especially that it’s about child development. Certain parenting styles may work for some kids and families, while it won’t be as effective to others. It’s the same with Cris’ views I think.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Excellent fabulous and wonderful. Thank you for writing 🙂 One thing though… I’m going to have to disagree with you strongly here… Teletubbies TOTALLY hurt children. 😉

    Liked by 3 people

  4. “God-if he wants to smite thee in slow motion”

    I just died from laughter. Oh my.

    I, too, have not read the original article and have no urge to. This article is brilliant and just my cup of smart-ass-take-that kind of writing. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I have read the article, and I agree with you that it is fear monte ring at it’s best. Thank you for the laugh out loud moments! Wonderful.

    Like

  6. I as well did not read the original article. A friend on Facebook had posted a link to your post. Though I do not have children, this is actually a topic my husband and I very recently discussed. I’m pro technology, as is my husband. I also believe kids should go play, outside, in nature and stuff. Something my husband and his brother never really did. He and I are different generations so this might explain why. He had Nintendo growing up, I was with the original Atari generation.

    Anyway, I loved reading your article! You made me Laugh Out Loud many times. To me, that’s impressive.

    I do confess to having a bit of confusion though… Ms. Rowan is anti-technology, but then has no qualms about utilizing it to help spread her message and agenda as far and wide as possible. In fact, the way I understood it, she makes her living via technology. This hypocrisy alone would make me lack trust in anything she had to say on this topic.

    Keep doing what you’re doing! You’ve just gained a new follower. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Awesome! Thanks for leaving a comment! It’s remarkable how much, even with awesome technology, kids still want to go outside (even if it takes a little push). We are super lucky to not only live in suburbia, but in a great community where we feel safe and can let our kids go out and play and, honestly, only have a vague idea of where we are. That freedom helps make it compelling for kids, and I think even little ones search for spaces where they can feel safe and yet be “away” from mom and dad on their terms. If you follow them to the sandbox, then maybe they’ll try to hide in Marioland or Azeroth instead.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I think you hit on a very important point — the kinds of technologies that kids love to use are OK and often positive. But all too often it takes the place of going outside, social play, and imaginative, unstructured play, all of which kids need. The research may be inconclusive, but in my experience as someone who works with children, overindulgence in these kinds of technological diversions does cause problems. But the danger isn’t so much with the technology itself as with the way it tends to displace other healthy activities that kids need. That’s my take, anyways.

      Like

  8. #9 would be funny except I know too many people who have died from brain cancers, often located near where they would have been holding their cell phones. Remember, the big study was done by Nokia. Remember, we used to think smoking cigarettes was ok too.

    Like

    1. I’m sorry for that. It’s tough- of all of the objections raised in the original article, EM emissions and sleep deprivation have, I think, the potential for the greatest actual impact on the health and well-being of children. on the other hand, my kids are far, far more likely to FaceTime grandma (and hold their device at arm’s length) than to actually hold a phone against their ears like some kind of Quaker.

      Like

      2. Sleep deprivation is definitely a real issue, FOR ME. The research behind exposure to blue light from screens and how it mimics daylight looks promising. In those cases, real doctors recommend no screens an hour before bedtime, for everyone. That’s reasonable, practical advice from people who don’t have to make a living generating attention because they have actual work to do.

        Thanks for visiting!

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Wow. I liked everything about this article, and all of the comments and even shared it with my friends… right up until the comment about Quakers? Really? You know people can be actual Quakers right? What on earth does it have to do with your point here? (Says the technophile Quaker…)

        Like

      4. I was counting on the famous pacifism of the Quakers to protect me. Oops.

        Next time I’ll arbitrarily pick on Belgium.

        (thanks for reading)

        Like

  9. After reading your blog, I did read (well, truthfully, skimmed) the original article. Thanks for drilling down into the bogus citations. Looks to me that next time I produce a screed about something or other, all I need to do is fill it with (Juarez 2008), (Jones 2005), etc. Looks ever so much more scholarly than my usual rants.

    I agree with Dawn, above, on all points. Great article, indeed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. thanks for this! Of course, it’s from The Government, and therefore is suspicious. Sigh.

      The real problem is that science is hard and the truth is pretty boring. While one could, at least in theory, make a career of …spreading… no that’s not the right word… let’s just call it “teaching” true things about science, it doesn’t sound nearly as much fun as just making stuff up every day. Why would anyone ever want to do that?

      Like

  12. I read the original article and thought “well, shit. I fail.” My kids both have their own iPads. We frequently spin through the grocery store with both of them watching something while eating their free cookies from the deli.

    SOMEONE THINK OF MY CHILDREN.

    Enjoyed this 🙂

    Like

    1. Thank you! My preferred grocery store technique is to unleash my 3 year old and let him distract the staff with cuteness/destruction while I shoplift 2 carts filled with Honey Nut Cheerios. Then, when he realizes I’ve left he leaves a toddler-sized hole in the wall a la Wile E. Coyote, whereby we reunite in the parking lot. Then I karate chop him into his car seat and drive the van like it’s stolen. Which it also is.

      But hey, iPads work too.

      Like

  14. Thank you for writing this! I didn’t read the original article..but thanks for doing the research on this, and setting the story straight. It’s so hard being a parent in this world..everywhere you look there is “an expert” telling you what you’re doing wrong. What, you’re kid doesn’t sleep? It’s because you did this. You’re kid won’t eat vegetables? It’s because you did that. It can really make you feel like a failure, when really you’re not! All of us are just trying to make it the best way we can, and raise our kids the best way we know how. All these self proclaimed experts need to get a life, and start living in the real world, and realize that technology is just part of the world we live in, and it is not going anywhere. And I’m also just wondering how many hours and what shows Chris Rowan’s kids watch, since she sounds so judgmental of everyone else. Again, thanks for clearing this up. Parents have enough things in life to make us feel guilty about. We don’t need another “expert” telling us how we messed up yet again.

    Like

  17. Thank you thank you thank you. My eyes almost got stuck rolling so far back in my head when I read the original article. My neurologist (chronic migraines) observed my 3 year old playing the iPad during one of my recent visits. He went on and on and on about how awesome it was for his brain, eye development, speech development, and motor skills. Anything can be bad for ‘the children’ in uncontrolled quantities. Parents these days have enough to worry about without heaping loads of guilt on our shoulders about occasionally using technology to occupy and teach our children, especially when it’s used to maintain our sanity levels on ‘those’ days.

    Like

    1. Wow that’s great! I mean not the migraines part, that’s horrible. The neurologist loving the iPad part.

      People see what they want to see… if you make a living dealing with the negative all the time (like the police, for example), it’s hard not to see the world as a writhing cesspit.

      Also, “Everything is fine, nothing to see here!” makes a lousy headline.

      Thanks for writing!

      Like

  19. I love when people loosely use science to try and prove their point and others come along and begin to pull little threads out and the whole thing collapses. Bravo!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. As someone who’s been happily married now for 15 years, the only possible correct answer I can give that will not involve me sleeping on the couch is: “Go for it!”

      How’d I do, honey?

      Like

  21. Love this article! I just wish I could share it. I’ve seen the HuffPo article make the rounds on FB, but it was always shared by my devout Mormons friends. They’ll stop paying attention to this post once the reach the word “fuck”. Dumb, I know.

    Like

    1. Share it anyway! I’ve partied with some Mormons and let me tell you, when they hit that third herbal tea BACK UP IT’S GETTING CRAAAZY IN HERE!

      Thanks for reading!

      Like

    2. Second reply. Your comment has been kicking around in my head these past few hours. The cursing really isn’t me, at least not any more. Poop jokes? All the time. F-bombs, not so much. At the end of the day, there’s nothing more profane than telling the truth. That’s what I want to do, as best I can.

      So I’ve polished out the F word. I don’t need it. I will do another post later to talk about this some more, but for helping me find my voice, I thank you. Share away, it’s safe now.

      Like

  24. THANK YOU! I kept seeing people post that article and it kept irritating me b/c no one was looking at how poorly sourced it was. I have a degree in psychology, I’ve read the studies. Even studies that proved a positive causal link between watching Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood and prosocial behavior (in other words watching it made kids nicer, even previously aggressive kids.)
    My kid, like his dad is a technogeek. It was going to be unavoidable. I’ve seen my kiddo progressively get better at age-appropriate games on the iPad, and I swear he’s picking up Chinese from the app I have. Either that or he’d just babbling, but he’s making those associations. Learning cause & effect-I press this button, and something happens. I’ve seen them. Sure, he could do that with non-tech toys. He has educational non-tech toys, books and some tech. I strive for balance. At least I don’t have to worry about one more thing I’m doing wrong when my kiddo steals my iPad.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I would rather my child play Starcraft II than watch The Wizards of Waverly Place. When he’s playing, not only is he an active, versus passive participant, but he’s usually on Skype chatting with his friends while they play together! Thanks for the Mr. Roger’s reference. Any chance you have a link to the study online somewhere?

      Like

  25. I am sorry to pop your bubble but there is more recent research that does support that young children should not be exposed technology early. Do your homework. The people who are promoting technology for children are NOT child development experts but tech/media people who want to make money off of parents. Responsible parents should research what is currently published by reputable sites such as National Association for Young children , Zero to Three, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.

    Like

    1. I love doing homework! I always got A’s on it in school. So here’s some homework I did, can you grade me?

      National Association for young children: I assume you mean National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC.org)? They have a position paper on technology and young children (http://www.naeyc.org/content/technology-and-young-children). Handy! Key finding: “When used intentionally and appropriately, technology and interactive media are effective tools to support learning and development.”

      Zero to Three: Published a journal recently (http://www.zerotothree.org/about-us/areas-of-expertise/zero-to-three-journal/33-4-ednote-toc.pdf) which has some interesting articles, like “Toddlers and touch screens: potential for early learning?”

      American Academy of Pediatrics: This one was tougher. I was only able to find a journal article about teen sexuality and media, and that’s not really relevant.

      I would say that, based on my homework, at least 2 out of 3 recommended sources are not against exposing young children to technology, providing some thought and care is applied to use. What’s my grade?

      You should absolutely be skeptical of anyone promoting anything, including themselves. Arm yourself with as much information as you can on issues important to you, ask questions, think for yourself, and ask more questions. Hucksters and charlatans will wave away questions. The road to the truth starts with asking why.

      Thanks for giving me the excuse to get more educated on this topic.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Bam! That was excellent…but I feel that Margie still won’t get “it”. She likely feels you are a video game salesman taking to writing a Blog to help ring up some sales of toddler video games.

        Like

  26. I love your tone, your sense of humor, and the way you totally called bullshit on that crapfest of an article. That horrible woman, who thinks she knows how to be a mother in today’s world better than the rest of us, can kiss my ass. I read her bio, both of her children are grown up, which means she raised them in the 80s to 90s. That means her ‘first hand experience’ didn’t even have a remote control, let alone handheld devices.

    Like

  27. What many of these anti-technology-in-any-form people fail to see is that it isn’t about quantity, it’s about quality, as you pointed out in your rebuttal. An hour of “16 & Pregnant & Punching People & Smoking Crack” on MTBravH1 is *always* far more harmful than three hours of “The Let’s Learn about Things and Stuff Sing-a-Long” on PBSproutNickDisJr.

    And sometimes, kids, especially toddlers, get sick of playing with Mommy, and just want some downtime. It’s about what they watch, not how much they watch, and as always, moderation is key.

    Great article!!

    Liked by 1 person

    2. i also want to add to this that sometimes mommy has sh*t she needs to get done around the house and can’t be playing with her 4yo all fecking day long…plus i don’t trust him with crayons unsupervised. so far, my kid hasn’t gotten my smartphone to play with at all, and we don’t actually own a tablet, but he’s no stranger to screen time and does just fine with it. PBS FTW!

      Like

  29. Thank you so much for writing this. Someone posted a link to your rebuttal during an online debate on the original article. Just after I vented my spleen at the finger wagging, eye rolling know-it-alls who seem to believe that modern parents have procreated purely to tick another box on their to-do lists. So help me God, if I hear the words ‘lazy parenting’ one more time during these debates my head will probably explode with the irony of why frequently childless do-gooders who seemingly have nothing better to do but sit ONLINE and tell parents what we’re doing wrong. Our children are from another world to the one in which many of us were brought up in. It’s modern life, and technology is going to be a big part of that. And hurrah for it, despite what the Luddites think. It’s all about balance and appropriate content and I believe most parents know that.

    Like

    1. It’s fashionable and fun to blame “lazy parents” as a group. As individual people, I haven’t met any parents I would call lazy. I’m all for self-reflection. I’m all for questioning the status quo. I love me some running around barefoot outside action. I don’t think that means I have to go Full Amish (who own cell phones, btw) and retreat from the world wearing rose colored glasses of how things used to be. Thanks for visiting.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. As someone who grew up in the heart of Amish country, I can say that yes, some of them have cell phones (New Order Amish in particular), but you’d be hard-pressed to find a genuine Old Order Amish person with one, no matter what Lebanon Levi, Esther, or the rest of those “We’re Amish but not really” schmucks on Amish Mafia say.

        Like

  30. This is sensational. To my scholar’s schadenfreude for junk science demolition, this was Christmas morning. I’m also a mom of two wild boys, and your parenting paradigm was spot on. Count me as a new subscriber.

    Like

    1. thank you! My wife said it’s a good thing we only had one girl because she was cut out to be a “boy mom”. I hope yours grow up awesome!

      Like

  31. I got about a quarter of the way through, and already noticed the following things:

    For an article that re-butts another, this one is full of such fallacies as:
    1. Emotive language (the stupid article 2014).
    2. Strawman arguments (representing all technology as the same using the inference of having to stop using toilets). Then only a few sentences later saying that research from 2004 was in-valid because with the inference that technology was less then (‘hello moto’.)
    3. Attacks on use of citation (convenient, for this article uses none)
    4. Fallacy fallacy – ‘an association between technologies and tantrums in children’ – while it is true correlation is not causation, this article doesn’t actual treat this claim, but instead again misrepresents it by classing it as having the same gravitas as ‘getting out of bed’ or ‘putting pant on’ – the inference here is that digital technology is an un-changeable aspect of our lives. It’s not. We’ve lived without it for thousands of years.

    I don’t think I can continue to read this. It’s just not very good.

    Like

    1. Don’t you think it’s a little dubious to equate the historical past with the immediate future? Computers are here. They’re not going away. Suggesting we ban them for children under 12 is ludicrous.

      Like

  32. Awesomeness! I read the original that a friend posted on Facebook a couple of days ago and thought it was ridiculous. He then posted your response today. Yes, in our children’s most developmental years let’s remove technology, that thing that every person will need to know how to use to be competitive in school, work or just life. Thanks for writing a thoughtful, and damn funny rebuttal. As a parent with young kids I have been scanning your blog and it’s great. You have a new follower!

    Like

    1. Awesomeness! Thanks for following! I’m going to go more into a better approach, but it’s going to take some thought. And probably gin.

      Like

  33. THANK YOU for writing this! I was horrified when I read the original article and the ridiculous “facts” being presented. I was even more dismayed to find my otherwise rationale Facebook friends sharing it so freely. Your response to the original piece was logical, articulate, and hilarious, and I’m fairly certain your lifetime site views are about to experience an exponential rise.

    Like

  34. I haven’t read the original article but from reading your rebuttal it’s obvious that many of the “facts” within in are suspect. Bloggers can pretty much claim anything to be true just by hand selecting a few lines from an article and citing it, knowing that 99% of the population will never take the time to investigate it further.

    However, I have to say that I do agree with her point, in part. I will hold my hands up and allow for hypocrital labels as I make my living working with technology, but I personally don’t see the need for children to be exposed to so many forms of technology. Cell phones, iPads, laptops, tablets, TV, video games. It’s overkill. I know far too many people who spend most of their time faceplanted to their phones. They’re virtually attached to it at the hip. Most people can’t even just use one of these technologues at once anymore. It’s not enough to be absorbed by a television show we have to text or tweet at the same time!
    I wish someone would do a study to determine just how much time children spend actively playing, inside or out, compared to fifteen years ago.
    I’m not desperately anti-technology, but I do think it’s too involved in our lives. Besides, are we happier as a result? I’m sure we’re poorer since we have to invest in the latest upgrades before what we currently have becomes obsolete, but are we happier? I doubt it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The core tenet of my parenting philosophy is children should be outside. I believe (and I’ll have to elaborate on this in another post after I’ve thought about it some more) that it’s possible to both be pro-outside and pro-technology at the same time. Knee-jerk reactions to ban things are pointless. Knee-jerk reactions masquerading as credible, thoughtful policy are deceptive and dangerous.

      Thanks for reading!

      Like

  35. LOVE, LOVE your rebuttal! I read the original article as it was being shared by multiple people on FB. It angered me every time I read it and I did also go and research some of the studies she was citing and also found some of the same things you found. I especially love the obesity claim…technology will not physically make me obese! Thanks for sharing!

    Like

  36. Thank you for posting this. When I read that original article I damn near developed a permanent twitch from trying not to smash things. Was going to try to write a rebuttal to it myself, but you’ve done far better than I could!

    Like

  37. Pingback: Relax, Your Kid Hasn’t Been Ruined by Electronics | theincompetenthausfrau

  38. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Wonderfully written. I got into an argument with someone over the original article and told her to check the sources!

    Like

    1. You’re welcome^3!

      It’s all too easy to distort facts and misrepresent data, especially given the pace of the media cycle today. Corrections don’t go viral.

      Like

  39. My rebuttal to Rowan’s #3: My brother and I grew up with a love for video games. We did not spend much time outside. You know why? We had nothing to DO outside. My dad loved his work a little too much, so he wouldn’t play with us inside OR outside. My mom hates exercising, and she assumed we would feel the same way, so she never bought us bikes, or sports equipment, or anything else that would support outdoor activity. So we spent all our time on TV, video games, and reading. In fact, one day God sent us a gift. A giant rubber ball that was twice our height randomly rolled into our backyard, and we loved it! Suddenly, we were going outside!

    My point is this: Maybe the reason kids with tech tend to be obese is not because video games are sucking out the will to go outside. Maybe the kids have no desire to go outside in the first place, so they fill the time with tech!

    And here’s a subpoint – Despite never getting sufficient exercise, we were never heavy growing up.

    Like

    1. You raise a lot of great points. You have to be in an environment where it’s okay to be a child, outside, unsupervised. You need friends to play with. They need to be outside too. You need things to do, whether it’s bikes to ride, balls to kick, swings to swing, or nerf swords to bop each other. It’s ultimately the responsibility of the parents to help set up the right conditions for all of this to occur.

      And I am shocked –SHOCKED I SAY– that playing video games did not make you obese. 😉

      Thanks for stopping by!

      Like

  40. While your article is simply a rebuttal to a “gone viral” other article, I think that the points you made — and made well — can be applied to pretty much all fear-mongering tripe out there.
    The most important bit that I really appreciate is checking the sources! I always told my children, in their twenties now, to never believe what I or someone else tells them unless they have read the source materials first. When my teenage daughter asked me about the Second Amendment debate regarding the Founders original intentions, I said we could have a good discussion about it after she read “The Federalist Papers”, and I handed her a copy.
    I rarely read Internet comments sections, but I read the comments here.
    Now you’re going to go viral. I’m posting a link on Facebook.

    Like

    1. Thank you for pushing information literacy with your kids! We need more high-information voters in this country. Whether you’re on the right, the left, or high overhead (or just high, if you’re a Colorado resident), the elites rely on the masses to be too lazy to think for themselves, and they’re generally right.

      Thanks for visiting!

      Like

  42. Wow. I love you. No seriously. I’m so sick of how everything we do as parents is killing our children.

    “Don’t cuddle your child too much, it will ruin your child. But don’t cuddle your child too little it will ruin your child. Feed your children organic food. Feed your children wheat free, dairy free, preservative free, sulphite free, basically everything except oxygen free food”

    You know what, if I want to give my kid a cheeseburger I will you damn hippies. I’m not going to turn my child into an obese brat from a cheeseburger now and then.

    And it’s the same with the tv debate. Sure if you sit your child I’m front of a tv all day without encouraging exercise and social interaction your kid will end up with some issues. But you know what, I love Sesame Street. It is educational for my kid and gives me an idea on how to further encourage some learning with fun things to do based on what ever letter they did.

    Also, couldn’t agree more about the restriction of movement issue. I am watching tv with my toddler right now and in the space of 5 minutes he has pulled out no less than ten books from the bookshelf and placed them in various locations around the house as well as gotten into my box of headbands and is trying each one on (as necklaces rather than headbands) as we speak.

    Brilliant article.

    Like

    1. There is a growing awareness that in the West, particularly the US, we worship our children. This needs to change.

      Like

  43. Great article. I hear all the time about how kids shouldn’t spend so much with technology, but when I was small, I loved playing video games and computer games and watching TV.

    Why?

    Because my parents tried to limit it, which made it the thing I wanted most. You know how it goes… Try saying “don’t eat dirt” to your 2-4 year-olds and they’ll just keep wondering about it until they end up eating it anyway.

    Like

    1. And let’s face it, video games are AWESOME. I have infinite blocks in Minecraft– I mean, Legos are cool and all, but unless you have a second or third generation lego collection that’s tough to keep up with.

      Thanks for commenting!

      Like

  44. I love this! Finally the voice of reason. THANK YOU for this post.

    Poor Ms Rowan will wonder what went wrong when her clueless “protected” kids are 35 years and still living with her.

    Like

  45. Pingback: 10 reasons why the “10 reasons to ban handheld devices” article is wrong, stupid | West Coast Review

  46. Thank you for this (mostly) excellent rebuttal. The only point with which I have any real quibble is the “addiction” portion, which I personally prefer to call “digital dependency”, and then not necessarily for the reasons given in the original or in your rebuttal.

    But if you don’t think it’s a real thing, try going without your cell phone for 3 days, or the internet for a week. 🙂

    Like

    1. I have, in fact, managed to go cold-turkey from a Friday evening to a Sunday afternoon– I locked my phone in the glovebox of my car during a camping trip with my son. It was refreshing. There are lots of people who have more expertise on this topic– Clay Shirky springs to mind with his “It’s not information overload, it’s filter failure” bit. We say “addiction” because it’s more convenient than saying “really really really prefer”. I have been addicted to nicotine. When I quit, it produced physical withdrawl symptoms. I was “addicted” to World of Warcraft. When I quit playing, I got on my wife’s nerves, but that was about the extent of the pain produced.

      Bottom line, I think we should try to be very careful when we use the word addiction so we do not trivialize the people who are truly suffering from addiction and really need help. THAT is the problem with the source article’s tossing around Internet Addiction like it’s a thing.

      Like

      1. Good on you! There are a lot of folks I know who can’t server the electronic apron-strings.
        As a former smoked (nearly 35 years a smoker) who finally managed to kick that a bit over three years ago, I can relate to the addiction issues, very much so, and recognize there is a huge difference between being hooked on something and realy, really wanting “just five more minutes” in WoW/Facebook/whatever.
        Again, thanks for the rebuttal (and the sourcing clarifications – something I hadn’t yet gone digging into, although I knew there were problems with the piece from the beginning.)

        Like

  47. APPLAUSE!!! Standing Ovation! Now going to post this as a comment to every friend who posted that POS article on FB!

    Like

  48. Oh dear goodness what in the world are we ever going to do when no one ever goes outside there house anymore and we all sit behind a computer and order our groceries and clothing and we all can work from home oh what fun that will be I wonder has Ms Cris Rowan ever pondered this thought in one of her delightful workshops. While I agree that kids do need to unplug at times I do not agree that Cris Rowan or anybody (except the child’s parent have any say about any bans on hand-held devices btw enjoyed it crazy rant!

    Like

  49. iBads made me laugh out loud. Exactly what I was thinking! When I read her article I thought similar thoughts, but you articulated it with elegance and I applaud you for it!

    Like

  50. Regarding #8…I’m assuming she’s thrown herself on the Parental Detachment sword, then, and sacrificed her relationship with her children so she can think of everyone else’s children? So noble!

    Or, you know, hypocritical.

    Like

  51. I believe you held a strong argument, just for smaller devices (Ipad, Ipod, Laptop, et cetera.) I believe kids can strain their eyes, and get bad cramps in the neck and back.

    Like

    1. I suppose it’s possible– I mean I used to read books in horrible light for hours on end when I was a kid, and now I wear glasses and my back hurts. Of course I’m getting dangerously close to 40, too, so maybe that plays a factor. 🙂

      We have had times where we’ve let the oldest play on the computer for hours at a time, and when he gets up he has a headache. We try not to do that very much.

      Thanks for stopping by!

      Like

  56. First of all, I am not anti-technology. I agree, a ban on technology for children is ridiculous. I do think that technology needs to be limited, as I’m sure you and everyone else agrees. Hands-on activities that promote fine motor skills are hugely important in the first years of life. Drawing with a real crayon on paper is awesome. My two cents: On the topic of ADD and ADHD… and technology… No, I am not suggesting that we directly correlate ADD and technology… however, there’s something to be said for learning how to concentrate. Especially for young, young children. Children learn the art of concentration, if I may call it an art (anyone with a 2 or 3 year old might agree), through practice and by manipulation and observation of the things and events around them. If a child spends huge chunks of time in front of a screen that provides an instantly gratifying and hugely stimulating graphics and sounds, and then you ask them to sit quietly in front of a still white board… what should happen? what should we expect? It’s like coming home from a blasting-loud-strobe-light-concert to your absolutely silent-still-bedroom… woah… my ears would still be ringing… could you concentrate after that? Well, that’s a little extreme of an analogy, but sometimes they need to be extreme to get a point made… something to think about. I enjoyed your blog topic. It’s always a heated debate because technology is great… kids are great… everything in moderation, that’s all I’m saying. Also, given that the earth lets us continue having it’s resources for many more generations, I do believe the bombardment of technology that we see will have some kind of evolutionary effect on the brain. How could it not?

    Like

    1. I am reading more research for a follow-up, and some of the findings are counter-intuitive. For example, fast paced shooter games, which we would think would decrease attention, have been shown to have the opposite effect. What all of this really tells me is we know so little about our own minds…

      Like

      1. Sure, correlative studies are interesting. I am thinking of a 2 and 3 year old person that probably isn’t playing fast paced shooter games (I’m sure some do). These new generations are not being gradually introduced to technology, like most of us adults were. It’s sort right there with them as they pop out of the womb! Maybe technology will re-wire our brains to be hyper-aware, super attentive beings — who knows! Maybe it’s all great. We can only wait and see. From my personal experience, I notice quite a calming effect on my 3-year-old after she paints for 30 minutes, as opposed to the groggy whines she makes after watching TV shows. Also, for the record, my family watches shows and plays video games and all that… but some times I think that technology is taking the place of pacifiers for children. And it’s pacifying not just babies… but older children, too. Eh, I kind of just want everything to turn out great for our species, that’s all. And I’ve rambled off. Thanks for replying. 🙂

        Like

  57. Enjoyed the article but I disagree on one point. Teletubies are a gateway to experimental drug use. Who knows how many teenagers and young adults are sampling controlled substances in search of LaLa, Po, and that purple guy no one remembers!

    Like

  59. How would one capture all the nice memories without technology. And there is so much confusion. Journals are full of experimental studies documenting the role of technology in early child development… Huffpost ought to hire good scientists who can do a thorough lit review.

    Like

  60. I loved this piece. Don’t even care what the original article is about or who this Rowan person is. As an educator what I see hurting kids is usually other kids…oh and stray pencils. Have a fantabulous night/day

    Like

  61. Making tech is one of the only three qualities distinguishing humans from other animals. The other two are art, and the need for self-delusion. I’m 60. Books, TV, radio and the movies are my normal tech, but for my son and grandsons handheld is their normal. I don’t have to learn theirs. They don’t have to be stuck with mine.

    Like

  63. There is always 2 sides to a coin, but we should respect choices made by every individual and see their side of it once in a while

    Like

    1. Tolerate? Perhaps, if they’re tolerable. Respect? That’s a much higher bar. Someone who demonstrates a lack of integrity is not worthy of respect. Forgiveness, perhaps. Respect is earned.

      Like

  64. I think the original article, just made a lot of us feel guilty. Our kids ARE using technology and some parents feel good about it, some parents feel nervous, and some parents are in denial, but either way, things are not changing. Technology is and will be a very vital part of our kid’s future. Thanks for shaking the shame off of our parental shoulders!

    Like

  65. I like the way you take apart the argument here. I grew up with “TV rots your brain” and had a very good go at rotting mine. It didn’t work. Although now I’m nearly fifty I find I forget the names of things sometimes, so it was probably the fault of the TV I watched as a kid.

    Like

  67. I’ve seen that link circulate around, and it’s usually posted by the same tinfoil crowd that reads “sensational” news a-la “walt disney is a satan cultist”, “GM-foods are an alien plot” or “the jews invented vaccination to turn us into slaves”. Kinda tells a lot about this article.

    Like

  68. This is amazing. I usually get bored reading posts this long, but you had me cracking up until the very end. Great job making it both informative and hilarious!

    Like

  70. Thank you for writing this, I saw the article on FB and didn’t even bother reading it just from the title I realised it was scare mongering BS. I’m a teacher and we are constantly being encouraged to use technology in the classroom and help our students learn how to navigate their digital worlds. Well done for taking the time to check her sources.

    Like

    1. Being encouraged by who?? Mostlily by lobbyist fromt eh companyies who sell the technology. You claim to be a teacher and yety ou can be that blind? Open your eyes.

      Children need to be outdoors, and need to be involved in child-led play. No screens, no social media, OUTSIDE.

      Like

      1. No one is making the claim that children shouldn’t play outside. It would be a profound lapse of professional responsibility for my children’s teachers to fail to teach my children basic technical literacy. In as early as 4th grade, my kids were on the internet doing research for school projects. While I have done my part as a parent to be the “training wheels” for their early explorations, I am counting on their teachers to do their part too. It’s not all on the parents.

        Like

      2. ok so 4th grade is FAR different from the first 3 years of life you state in your article. 4th graders have already gone through the phase of highest brain growth, so the 2 scenarios are totally different.

        Plus your argument on sleep deprevation is absurd. You claim that it is the schedules of children that cause the deprevation, yet you are too (arrogent? Ignorant? so completely naive?? I’m having a hard time just choosing 1 of those since your entire article is based on conjecture….) to think perhaps that on top of schedules and homework and the rest of the shit, that perhaps children should be allowed some down time without a screen shoved in their face.

        Get a clue, children need human interaction. They don’t need screens, they don’t need unlimited information bombarding them 24/7 from technology. They need responsible parents who would rather interact with their children then allow a computer to raise their children for them

        Like

  72. I found this through Freshly Pressed on wordpress.com. I was surprised when you said your readership was not very high. You drew me in. This is the only article of yours I have read, but I hope there are more call-outs like this coming up.

    Like

    1. This topic really was the gift that kept on giving… thanks for reading, and I’m always on the lookout for more things to rebutt.

      Like

  76. Can somebody get that agenda-focused killer of a modernized world to stop doing workshops. She is probably using “dark ages” poison in the Kool-Aid passed around during her speaking engagements.
    I won’t dare reply to every single point in your post, but from what I gather Ms. Rowan is the catalyst for many science-fiction books where enlightenment and thinking is considered evil (i.e. Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World). What would she do after she removed technology from the world, burn books that disagree with her views?

    Like

  78. I don’t care about any of those things. I just wouldn’t buy a 12-year-old a phone or handheld video games simply because they don’t need them. Only thing I’d allow is a portable music player, but not one that uses internet.

    Like

  88. My turn! My turn! Three nights ago I received an email notification that someone had posted to my fb wall. I don’t use fb much any more, the Duck Dynasty posts and the horrific grammar and spelling (which is a real feat considering smart phones, tablets, autocorrect, etc) left me doubting humanity so I was taking a break. But if someone took the time to share something, it must be worth it….right? It was from my daughter in law, and it was that post! I started reading in earnest, thinking there was yet another new set of child rearing laws I would have to remember before I kept my g-babies again (ages 5 and 1). A few bullets in and I was like wha? REALLY? I even scrolled back to the top and looked for evidence it was some sort of joke/spoof post. Nope….real. I skimmed the rest. Crazy stuff in there. My five year old grandson is so smart, has incredible hand-eye coordination, and will blow his teacher away when he starts school. He is neither obese or ADD or addicted (Please God help the children!). He can also race a mean car, blow an alien out of the sky and if given the choice, we are OUTSIDE sans iPad.
    Yesterday when browsing for a new read I saw your post. On first glance I thought it was the other post because of the title (so sorry!). When I saw it I thought, Oh no! It’s here too! Please someone squish it before mass hysteria ensues and we are forced to take away the only thing to keep a five year old still so I can cook supper thing in years! Moderation people….simple moderation.
    I love your blog! I’m glad I found it. Thank you so much for countering that nasty bit of media!

    Like

  90. Thank you so much for taking the time and scrutinizing sources. So many readers that get on board and swept away with these popular ideas don’t ever look at the sources cited- probably bc of the overuse of APA and whatnot. However half of them go to sales sites, other blogs that don’t cite anything but an opinion, or just a source that is not credible. Perpetuating the idea that society is bad.

    Liked by 1 person

  91. Oh wow! That was truly fabulous. Thank you for this article. I do occasionally feel guilty about letting my kids play with technology, but usually it’s only after my son hits the cow (“Moo”) 20 times in a row on the iPad flash card game.
    And seriously, who cites themselves?!?!

    Like

    1. If it makes you feel any better, my son is in year 6 and I haven’t given him a phone yet. Phones are expensive kid.

      Like

      1. I’m sorry, I just don’t agree with you. I feel you are needlessly focusing on one aspect of the Internet (porn). There’s a lot of “kids these days” generalizing, but none of it jives with my experience, or the experiences of any of my fellow parents who have kids my age. They still read paper books. They still hold a pencil and write. They still have to memorize math facts and spelling words. You are describing a cultural problem that I don’t even agree exists. Maybe that means I am part of the problem too? I just don’t see it.

        Like

  98. Congratulations on Freshly Pressed – kudos for the picture from History Channel of Ancient Aliens dude, I’m still laughing. As I see it; alarmists bent on these type of articles are no different from burners of Catcher In The Rye or (as in the case of my generation – I’m 54) crusaders against evil unleashed by cable television.

    My kids (the oldest now 29) were introduced to technology – video games, computers, cell phones – in those years when tech exploded. Video games taught problem solving and conflict resolution, internet expanded horizons, and cell phones offered safety and independence.

    There will always be closed minds – minds incapable of grasping the world we live in today, not the world they grew up in.These are the same people who blame technology for mental illness, gun violence and attention deficit disorder. Bottom line – pointing fingers won’t erase one simple fact – it all comes down to the parent.

    Like

  99. I like the way you think. Rowan seems to be another fear monger hiding behind children. Writers like her love to find something else we should all be scared of. Way to combat ridiculousness by making it even more ridiculous!

    Like

  100. Reblogged this on Jasmine Smits and commented:
    This is not an academic blog at all, but it relates to technology in the home and I found it entertaining. If there is all this controversy about how much technology should be allowed into the home, it led me to wonder how parents feel about technology in the classroom?

    If I was a parent who had formed an ‘anti-technology’ view in the home, how would I feel if my child’s teacher started using it more and more? As a teacher, how much am I going to have to educate parents and justify my view on technology in the classroom.

    Any parents out there care to comment on their views of technology in the home/classroom? Should there be different rules for each?

    Like

  102. I remember seeing that article floating around in social media, I just rolled my eyes and didn’t bother clicking on it, but I appreciate your rebuttal… save one thing. Teletubbies are terrifying and the evidence suggests that subjecting children to them for extended periods of time is harmful (Janelle Weibelzahl, et. al., 2014). 😉

    Like

    1. Hah! I did find something in my later research that indicated that teletubbies actually impairs language development, which is probably why it plays so well with the stoner demographic. This goes back to how important the quality of the media consumed is, and not necessarily the quantity.

      Like

  103. I just LOVE this rebuttal. I did not see the original article until after I read yours. Now that I have read it I feel I must reply.

    I have to say that I shy away from articles that use extreme terms such as “ban” and “never”. If you completely remove something you take away the ability to learn it or learn FROM it. Education is the path to growth. Should a child have a handheld device ALL the time? No! Should the child be deprived of them? No! It’s all about moderation. It’s always about moderation. For example, eating fast food three times a day, every day (no moderation) can cause obesity. Watching television won’t cause obesity unless you’re given all the food you want (again, no moderation) while watching. My daughter uses technology on a regular basis. You can’t get away from it. Does it make her grades suffer? Only when she has access to it ALL the time. There’s that moderation thing again.

    I am not going to argue all of Ms. Rowan’s points because you have done that admirably and it take an eternity to type. I would like to know if she has any children. With all of her listed occupations, if she does have children, she cannot possibly be spending time with them. Raising a child is a FULL time job and every child is different. If she does have children, she should ignore the studies and study HER children. Besides, for every study cited, I could probably find one to refute it.

    Technology, which is a vague term since there is always technology it’s just what’s relevant at the time, is a necessary evil, if you will. Electronic technology is the direction the world is going. Keep a child away from it, I defy you to even try, and he/she will fall behind. Deal with that stress when the time comes. Electronic devices should be in the schools. Schools are about learning. ALL aspects of learning. Children ARE our future! Teach them the difference between right and wrong. Teach them how to interact with others and be tolerable of others. Teach them everything there is to know about the world. My daughter has learned to use handheld devices and computers on a regular basis. She is brilliant at it. It will be her life. No one should deprive her that right by banning anything.

    Two words to remember, EDUCATION and MODERATION.

    Actually, there IS one thing that should be banned, the word BAN.

    Thanks for the post!

    Like

  105. I totally agree with points 2 and 3 in particular. Watching TV does not necessarily limit movement. My eight-year-old watches Ben 10…and then goes out and “plays” Ben 10, complete with a green watch (his name is also Ben, so he loves that show). My two-year-old wants the TV on all day long…so he can dance. He wants a specific DVD of music videos and then runs around the house “dancing” and also attempting to sing. If the TV is off, he wants to iPad so he can play a video recording I made of the family singing together. Again, so he can dance to it and attempt to sing (although with the family songs, you can actually tell what he’s singing).

    I see very little reason to fear my kids getting fat.

    Like

    1. I am more afraid of “bored eating” than I am inactivity. This could be my naivete, but that’s what I’m on them about. You can eat potato chips. You can watch TV. Don’t eat potato chips and watch TV.

      Like

  107. I actually read the original article a few nights ago and began yelling at my phone at the ridiculousness of the claims she was making. It was actually getting to the point where my Husband told me to stop reading it (that’s how upset I was getting) Almost every point she brought up felt fabricated and a lot of solutions seemed to be Moderation and the parents’ responsibility. Blame technology for ruining our children instead of looking at what the parents themselves could be doing differently.

    At the time my first child was born I was managing a video game store and my Husband was in school for Computer Programming. There was no doubt that technology was going to play a large role in our household and our children’s lives. My daughter had her own DS by the time she was 2 and I researched and bought her only educational games to play with (Sesame Street early learner games) She’s been gradual exposed to other technology over the years and is now in school where they have specific Computer days and iPads in the classroom. She is also skinny as a rail, loves to paint and draw, goes outside and runs around, plays with her toys and her brothers. Technology is a part of our lives and depriving our children of it is going to hinder them later in life but it’s also up to the PARENTS how much and what they’re exposed to.

    Great article, so happy to see someone using common sense in regards to this issue.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I think it’s awesome that you and your friends are writing about something you love! For some ideas for more things to write, how about stories about the different worlds you create? Or you could pick a monster, do a screen capture, and then write a funny little story about that monster. Lots of possibilities, have fun with it and keep writing writing writing!

      Like

  109. Love this! I read the original article as it did the rounds on FB and was shared by my friends, who somehow have managed (so far) to raise toddlers with little to no telly (!) It instantly got my back up because there was a sweeping statement in the first paragraph which was something along the lines that children who are exposed to technology OFTEN have life-threatening consequences!!! It amazes me that she got away with publishing that as a fact and made me question EVERYTHING else in it. Brill article..yours I mean 😉

    Like

  111. It all truly just comes down to moderation. Granted kids 100 years ago didn’t have the technology that we have now, but as we evolve (in technology and other areas), we need to keep in mind that we truly control what is too much consumption of any given thing. The blame game on games, tv shows, and technology is a joke. The parents need to be held more accountable.

    Like

  114. LOL So much for your 4-digit stats. Your article, rant, whatever you want to call it, is great on a host of levels. There’s no shortage of opinion out there (check out your comment stream!) on parenting, esp. when it has to do with technology and stuff WE didn’t have when we were kids. (Incidentally, our parents said the same things of us with the console TV, Barbie castles, GI Joe’s, and Pong. “Get outside!” I heard more times than I can count.) Some things never change.

    Anyway, way to go. Loved your trackbacks to the other articles. Especially loved your…satire. That dog-and-pillow photo still makes me laugh. Could have been one of my kids in the same situation.

    Like

  118. Reblogged this on featherandmane and commented:
    I found this blog post very interesting. I am not sure how much I will allow my son to watch tv (he is 7 months old ), but I have a lot of respect for someone when they research all the cites in the original article that technology is bad.
    -Owl

    Like

    1. Thank you! The choice is yours. The current research (and I’m going to write more about this) suggests that as a rough guide, less than one hour per day if they’re under two. This has a lot to do with (and I’m paraphrasing) that very young minds have a hard time registering speech that doesn’t come from human faces, so they’re not capable of really receiving any possible benefit. As they get older and start interacting with their environment more, they start to have more of the basic wiring in place and can benefit from non-human sources of speech.

      When in doubt, just strap the boy to your chest and talk constantly to him until he passes out from exhaustion. You both win!

      Like

  123. I enjoyed this very much. I haven’t read the original article but, like the majority of those leaving comments here, I hate the scare-mongering. The telly is known as ‘the third parent’ in our house because there are times when both my husband and I are busy and, quite frankly, we need half an hour to get things done. Over to you, The Wiggles.

    I’ve just finished typing up my grandpa’s memories. He used to amuse himself outside by setting fire to wasps’ nests and running like heck. I think that was considerably worse for his health than half an hour with an iPad would have been (if they’d been invented in the 1920s).

    Like

  125. I’m probably pretty dumb to say this, but I personally don’t agree with 4: Sleep deprivation. Electronics do have a lasting effect in many cases, sometimes up to 2 hours. Also, many kids sometimes are so immersed in their electronics, they never really do talk to their parents for an hour or so, I know some who do this (I don’t have a huge amount of friends, this may not be true.) Sometimes it’s a brief goodnight and lights out. But that still doesn’t take away time from their electronics, they may use the hour of talking with their parent’s for electronics. So let’s say a kid went to sleep at 10.
    If he or she didn’t talk to his or her parents, they would still go to bed at 10. Not only that, but the “blue” light (the kind of light produced from electronics) would keep them up later, so there’s a chance they’ll end up going to sleep at 11 or even 12. The time when children wake up can be different from others, but most I know go to sleep at 10 or 11, so if they used electronics and they wake up at 5 or 6 for school, they only get 7 or 8 hours sleep, not the suggested 10 hours of sleep. Also, you said that they weren’t able to show why young people are missing out on sleep? I think I found the quote you’re looking for. First thing in the article, after the bold text, the article states,”It is a particular problem in more affluent countries, with sleep experts linking it to the use of mobile phones and computers in bedrooms late at night. So, while yes, technology in the bedroom, in my opinion, is a terrible idea, in some cases, taking technology out of the bedroom would not be a solution. I agreed with all the other things, but I might want to add the fact the technology can be good if used in the right way, i.e. Khan Academy. You had a very well written article that I found interesting to read. Thank you for bringing this important topic up.

    Like

    1. The original study did not provide a cause, so the journalist at the Guardian asked some sleep experts to provide an explanation for the study, and they chose handheld devices.

      I don’t fundamentally disagree with the premise that avoiding electronics an hour or so before bed is a good idea- I have seen (not read thoroughly) the blue light studies, and we try to incorporate that into our nightly routines.

      I don’t think that means handhelds should be banned, though.

      Like

  131. hahah I really enjoyed reading this article and I completely agree! I remember babysitting for a lady and she never let her children watch TV. We had to constantly be making crafts, or going for walks or to the park, or whatever activities I could think of, as long as it did not include television or video games. I did not agree with this, however, of course I found lots of things for the kids to do. I believe it is all about moderation. Too much of anything can be unhealthy.

    Like

  132. I LOVE this! BTW before I became a blogger I was tested and found to br 100% ADHD at age 24 & I was already a mother so NO technology did not make me ADD I was born that way, my mother has the trait & now my 4th grade daughter (who is a complete tech geek) is ADD however she is a straight A student so whatever to this woman, she can KMA! Thanks for a great post! ~A~

    Like

  134. You have some really great points. My kids learn a lot from technology. We as parents just have to make sure they also have physical play to challenge them too.Also set limits on how long they spend doing things with different technology.

    Like

  137. Pingback: Hang up and talk | No, Strike That
  138. Pingback: Why do we always think of the children? Really….. Why? | alexpetrolo

  140. At the end of the day, all a parent has to do is remove the so called evil technology from the kid’s grasp. You don’t want your kid to be obese and you think technology is doing it? Take that video game, iPad, what. Have you away. She should focus more on what good parenting looks like.

    Like

    1. Thou hast plugged thine own blog thrice in my comment section, which is twice too much. I beg thee to cease, lest I employ the banhammer.

      Like

  143. I refuse to think of the children, because I don’t have any of my own. If I thought about other people’s children, I’d be Pedobear. I don’t want to be Pedobear.

    Like

    1. You are allowed to lightly think about other’s children with faint fondness. I suggest following up with appropriate verbalization– “aww” usually works. Just stay away from the playgrounds.

      Pedobear.

      (thanks for playing!)

      Like

  144. Reblogged this on A Day Job and a Dream and commented:
    I grew up playing video games, not to mention watching rented horror movies and listening to heavy metal (aka Parent-Hating Satan Music, according to an old cartoon called Duckman), and I turned out reasonably well. I’m not a raving success by most American standards, but I don’t really give a damn about what my fellow Americans think unless they bought my book. 🙂

    Like

  147. I enjoyed this article very much – just a right amount of humor thrown in with facts. I might have expanded on item #2. No, technology does not make people fat; a sedentary lifestyle can do that. As children are using I-Pads, I-Pods, Smart Phones, Smart TVs, and numerous other electronic devices, they are not physically active. Now, obviously, this is not true for every child. It has been a concern over the years, though, of various parents, doctors, and educators. (no citation; all information came from my cobweb-filled brain)

    Like

    1. No, a sedentary lifestyle will make you sick in a variety of ways, but it. won’t. make. you. fat. Why do people lose weight when they are confined to a hospital bed? Shouldn’t they come out heavier? Pick your flavor of weight loss program– no matter which one you chose, it comes down to about 90% diet and 10% exercise. You want to be afraid of something? Be afraid of your grocery store. This myth that kids playing video games makes them fat HIDES the real culprit, which is the meals being put on the table. I cook about 50% of the meals in our house. Making real food with real ingredients (and I’m not talking organic, because that’s just more marketing BS) takes a lot of time and effort.

      Don’t blame Steve Jobs because he’s not the one serving mac and cheese from a box or pasta sauce from a jar.

      RAWR!

      Sorry didn’t mean to go nuts, but man does this push my buttons. I hope I convinced you! Now go forth and spread the truth!

      Like

  149. Debunking that crap with common sense (most of the time) was nively done (pictures helped 2).
    And I just really laughed my ass of. Thanks for a good read 🙂

    Like

  150. Thank you so much for writing this! Technology rocks, but it doesn’t destroy kids minds. Not interacting with your kids, does. Not stimulating them in addition to technology does as well. Thanks again!

    Like

  154. I grew up without even a TV and I am all kinds of messed up (not for that reason or anything). I doubt a child being exposed to electronic devices is really going to ruin their lives. Especially if it is properly moderated by an adult.

    Like

  156. Although it may not be all terrible for kids. I’d still like to see this generation running around outside enjoying the fresh air and building friendships. Ahh, good times.

    Like

    1. I’d like to see more parents let their kids be a little more free-range. That’s why I write- be the change you want.

      Like

  157. Of course it’s fantastic that you went through and did the research (aka clicked her citations and called her bluffs) on this topic, but writing this in such an entertaining way made me want to keep reading! The rebuttal for all the points were strong, concise and humorous. Your blog deserves a million more views.

    Like

  159. Um, two things.

    one: Why would you risk it with your children, just because an article is poorly sourced?

    and two: How about your child reads a book instead of playing SC2, which is supposedly better than Wizards of Disney channel?

    Like

    1. I chose to “risk it” with my kids because the author has based her career and reputation on incorrectly interpreting scientific studies. There seems to be a lot less “it” to “risk”, but that doesn’t sell books or seminar seats.

      Playing SC2 with real world friends is a fundamentally different activity than reading a book. There is value in his shared experience there, especially because I can hear him talking and laughing with them on Skype. Why would you infer that if he plays video games then he doesn’t read? They are different activities for different moods.

      Like

      1. Your child’s friends are not real world if they are in a video game. If he/she went outside and played with them, that is real world. No one assumed your child didn’t read because he/she played video games, however your “preference” to the child choosing Starcraft over TV, grants me the assumption that a book isn’t even an option.

        And MUCH science supports the “it” and “risk,” just do some research. Just because Cris Rowan’s article was out of date doesn’t mean her argument is invalid. In fact your article is essentially a very poor ad hominem, instead of a well researched rebuttal.

        Like

      2. I am confused by your assertion that my children’s friends are in the video game. They are in their houses. Talking via Skype. Playing a video game. Was that not clear in what I wrote initially?

        The burden of proof is on Ms. Rowan to support her position, especially when it is so extreme as to suggest banning. You also seem to have a different understanding of what an “ad hominem” attack is than I do, because my understanding is that a person’s public position and the quality of their work is fair game. I might be willing to grant you that questioning someone’s motivation might be construed as ad hominem, but that’s a judgement call I made based on the perceived relevance. She earns her living from selling products and services to combat the hysteria she is trying to generate.

        If you don’t find my arguments convincing, there is a less trying-to-be-funny and more scholarly rebuttal also on HuffPo.

        I checked out your blog. I don’t actually object to the notion that we should be very careful about how technology impacts our lives. I do object to people who try to profit from fear. I do object to people like Ms. Rown who use objectively poor quality writing and try to dress it up with mis-interpreted studies to bolster their opinions. There are enough real wrongs in this world that we don’t need to invent new ones.

        Thanks for commenting.

        Like

    2. How do you know that her children don’t reads books as well? I watch the TV constantly but guess what… I also read constantly…

      Like

  161. Pingback: Blog Content Tips to Get Your Creative Juices Flowing! | Caroline Pigott - Freelance Copywriter & Editor | Your Business Copywriter

    1. Thank you! I can’t ❤ you back though because according to your blog you're a minor. The wedgie post was really funny, though. TMI, but funny. Keep writing!

      Like

  167. Love this post! Especially the TV and video game aggression parts, and thought this image was quite appropriate.

    Like

  168. For some reason I get an email (which pops up on my phone) every time someone comments on this post. I am pretty new to word press and the blogging world in general. As a result, I’ve received hundreds (it seems) of emails of comments to this post, and it has kept this topic fresh in my mind for DAYS. It’s driving me crazy. I think anyone who says anything about moderation is correct. Also, the whole “guns don’t shoot people; people shoot people” argument is similar to this in that the parent of a child is responsible for the amount of screen time a child is exposed to. Therefore, a ban is not the solution. Parents setting limits on the amount of screen time per day for their children is the solution. HOW MUCH screen time is the real question. Our pediatrician booklet thing highly recommends only 2 hours total screen time a day for children. What do you think?

    Like

    1. First, I’m so sorry for the comment alerts. If you go back to your original comment and edit it, you might be able to unselect the “notify on replies to this thread” option. I tried to edit it for you but I couldn’t turn that off on my end.

      I think that, on balance, 2 hours is a reasonable guideline, and emphasis on guideline. Given that the guideline for the amount of sleep children should be getting is in the 10-12 hour range, 2 hours represents a large chunk of their non-sleeping time. As parents it’s perfectly reasonable for us to help our kids at least be aware that there is a quality difference between watching cartoons for an hour, reading a book for an hour, playing with legos for an hour, and playing outside for an hour. But sometimes you have to work with the energy you have. When the kids get home from sports, they’re pretty cooked. I don’t begrudge them their veg out time.

      Like

      1. Oh, it’s been fine getting all of the email alert comment responses. It’s been interesting. Thank you for trying to turn off that option though!

        I definitely agree with what you’re saying. There are those times when watching a little extra TV is better than having everyone meltdown simultaneously. 🙂

        Like

  170. A meta-analysis was carried out a few years ago showing cell phones in particular were linked to cancer in children later in life. So there are many studies that demonstrate the HuffPost is more correct than not. Just because the author did a poor job spoon feeding the information to you doesn’t mean the backing doesn’t exist. Check any medical research database and you will find research to back the claim that technology is detrimental to brain development in children. It physically alters how neural networks form. It changes brain-mapping. It keeps our children inside and sitting. At the end of the day, you cannot argue that it doesn’t change brain development negatively. There is too much evidence.

    Like

    1. As I have said elsewhere, the burden of proof is on the author to support their claims. Surely we can agree that this is a basic element of persuasive writing?

      You have claimed the existence of a meta-analysis, and “many studies”. In order for someone to find your position persuasive, these claims need supporting.

      Using Google Scholar I was able to find a meta-analysis that concluded Exactly The Opposite.

      I also don’t think we are in agreement on your assessment of neuro-physiology. There is evidence that suggests that exposure to TV programs (passive stimulation) for children under two is at best, pointless (not as awesome as my feet NOMNOMNOM) and at worst, detrimental for a variety of reasons. Just saying that brain development is negatively affected is overly simplistic and willfully ignores an equally large body of work that has found benefits from exposure to certain kinds of media, including the Evil Violent Video Games.

      In short, this is a complex topic and the piece that I responded to did nothing to add clarity to the debate and only served to generate clicks for HuffPo and attention for the author’s seminars and books. I call shenanigans.

      Like

  171. Guilty as charged !! Sometimes the technology helps to keep us sane.. With two kids I control and restrict the technology time to an hour a day but with small kids it’s a way to make sure they are on front of us and not hurting themselves while we manage chores around the house .. So yea .. Who ever says NOT to give tech is talking outta A** .. Sorry but it’s true

    Like

  173. Pingback: Trustful Parenting Experiment #3: Unlimited Screen Time | The E is for Erin

  177. I was lucky that when my kids were little, the only technology they had was the tv. Did I use it? You bet. They’re now teenagers and I’ve given up on the ‘screen time’ guilt trip for the following reasons (My Top 5): 1. They’re boys or more specifically Geekboys. If I told them to give up the technology for a day, they’d look at me as if I’d suggested not eating for a week. 2. They’re super-skinny so nahnahnah to the obesity argument. 3. They’re super-smart so I guess all that tv didn’t destroy too many braincells. 4. The only violence in our house involves carefully hurled insults using words that would have the average jock reaching for a dictionary. 5. They’re teenagers – sleep deprivation is an adolescent rite of passage. Mainly because teens seem to want to sleep between 1am and 1pm and high schools insist on operating on a 9am-4pm timetable.

    That’s not to say I don’t try and exercise some control over their technology access (only one has a phone) but I don’t beat myself up about it.

    Thanks for your post. Sorry to be so late to the party; I must have been busy on another piece of technology. Oh, and apologies to everyonecanmontessori for another email notification. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s not a party, it’s an intimate get-together. Thanks for stopping by 🙂

      Also, love your blog, you have another new follower!

      Like

  178. Some of your points are correct–the lack of validating research in the original article is fascinating. However, concerning obesity, the notion is that being a sedentary child (assuming of course) on his/her device has made an exchange for time he/she could be playing actively. THIS is what would lead to obesity, not the time on the device per se, but in the lost time not being active.

    Like

    1. I understand the opportunity cost argument– really, I do. There’s an opportunity cost for everything we do. As I’ve said in more detail in another post, it’s still a false argument. The only thing producing obesity in children is the crap their parents are buying for them to eat. You can be skinny and lazy. Kids don’t “exercise”- that’s a painful activity coined by adults. Kids play. Sometimes with their bodies, and sometimes with their minds, but always playing. By pretending that childhood obesity is caused by anything other than childhood diet is masking the real root cause and is intellectually dishonest.

      Like

  179. What technology a problem? If it weren’t for technology, I would have been a troubled teen. Indeed, how can I tell my children they can’t have technology when I work in technology? I sit at a computer 6 hours at work, and can’t wait to get home so I can work on my computer. Technology has created a household of techno-wizards at my house!

    Like

  180. Pingback: I’m coaching puppies | No, Strike That

  181. So… as this is a debate about technology… I feel I should share. I have a 4 year old boy, who’s about as hyperactive as they come… and spent a good part of his life outside I might add, yeh, exercise makes them less hyper they say. On this point I believe my husband and his family are more correct than Cris Rowan, “What he does today makes him stronger and more active tomorrow.” But I digress, after reading the original article, and WHILE reading this one, my son puts down his tablet, stops watching TV and voluntarily goes to his table to play with his blocks… which he then promptly drops on his toe… proving that while he was sitting and happily watching TV… he was actually safer there… because he’s his own worst enemy… However, hurting himself didn’t deter him from playing with his blocks either… which, I feel I should also add, he does WHILE watching TV too… Great article, thanks for the rebuttal to that pile of nonsense

    Like

    1. Like you, I have plenty of direct personal observation that seems to contradict the article. Thanks for commenting!

      Like

  182. Meh. You’re only mocking her style (which is lacking, true) but she at least cites actual research. Which mostly supports her POV. And you simply ridicule. Not cool.

    Like

    2. That comment right there is exactly the reason why I wrote this post. I cited actual research too! Where’s my credit?

      The problem is that any idiot (myself included) can cite research to attempt to persuade the readers that they are credible. It’s up to the readers to exercise a healthy dose of skepticism and independent though to evaluate the claims. In her case, I read the research she cited and pointed out where she misrepresented what she was citing, or just flat-out got it wrong.

      Thanks for leaving a comment, especially because you don’t agree.

      Like

  183. We stumbled over here from a different website and
    thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m
    following you. Look forward to going over your web page for a second time.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.