My personal observation is that "screen time" is not the problem, but lack of interaction _is_ - letting the kids be in front of a screen for two hours doesn't cause a problem, but letting that be an excuse not to spend time with them or interact with them (which is when it usually ends up happening in large quantities) does. Essentially - you need to control the other variables to understand what's really going on; excessive screen time is generally a symptom and not a cause.
And in this case the quantifiable, non-self-reported part is the MRI brain scans they're doing, but what does that data indicate? I'm too ignorant of neuroscience to know. Are all changes in behavior and cognition detectable through an MRI scan? Maybe the average kid who spends 8 hours a day playing video games finds it nearly impossible to read a single page of a Harry Potter book without getting distracted, while a kid with 2 average hours of screen time has no problem with it, yet the difference maybe isn't reflected in an MRI scan? Did they perform these same scans on some Amish kids as a control?
Point being sometimes studies like this are hard to swallow when their conclusions go against so much anecdotal observation, particularly when the methodology leaves room for all kinds of other interpretations
The time it goes bad is when I need the full day for, as an example, pack for a long trip. In that case tv is a necessity, but the consequences are terrible
My wife and I have seen the same thing with our child. More agitation, more self-satisfying behavior ("forgetting" to do as told and playing instead), more temper tantrums. Kiddo still gets screen time, but it's limited.
There's a much bigger correlation with bad behavior, mental "fuzziness," and impulsiveness to diet, than to screen time. Too much processed food, food with preservatives, and food with refined wheat flour... yikes. Night and day difference in some cases. (Turns out a lot of kids have a "wheat allergy" but it isn't just that.)
People aren't worried about screens in general, but social media in particular as well as other smartphone applications that are engineered to keep you engaged.
See Johnathan Haidt's literature review here for what an actually critical reading of the literature would lead you to reasonably conclude: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill...
But hopefully the strategy of "just let the kids blend it all together and hope it washes out in the statistics" is a good enough method -.-
It is quite appropriate to call such declarations dubious.
Your explanation is fine, however, this 'no evidence' refrain that has been used to mislead the public has gone on long enough. At this point when that is in print the assumption may as well be the opposite.
Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past and the clear major difference is full attention grabbing effect of media. But no, no, it isn't the 'screen time'
Can we? On what evidence?
The "no evidence refrain" happens because people keep advancing claims without even trying to back them up.
But might kids who never had access to screens react similarly if you took away their prized Legos, comic books, bike, art supplies, or other immersive toy? It doesn't seem like dramatic temper tantrums over losing a prized activity are new,and neither do obsessions over objects or activities.
That does of course not mean that it's not sometimes an indication that some kids are relying on it too much, but the level of reasoning on this subject seems to regularly be mired in hyperbole.
Screens are poison.
I have children and the relationship is much more complicated with them. There is a danger in overgeneralization from anecdotal evidence.
> we should consider the effects they have on their developing brains.
Strange line to use dismissing research into that exact topic.
There is, and there is likewise the danger of overgeneralizing from scientific studies. That is, even if the study has been conducted without error, we must correctly understand what the measurements used were, how they relate to observable phenomena, and what they entail. A study may make a very modest claim about something really quite specific, but it is easy to misinterpret the actual results and overinfer what they entail.
Ergo, it may very well be the case that the OP has observed increased agitation with screen time, and this need not contradict the study, and vice versa.
But we must always remember that what is observed takes precedence. If you observe a genuine correlation between screen time and misbehavior personally, it makes more sense to go with what you have observed rather than the study. To quote Chico Marx facetiously, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?".
That is negative for the parents state of mind, not the child's cognitive development.
> And screen time is as addictive to children
Being addicted to an activity doesn't necessarily hurt your cognitive development.
This kind of minimizing is a standard part of how addicts rationalize their behavior to themselves.
Oftentimes it is not directly the addictive behavior that is the major problem. Instead the primary problem for many addicts winds up being all of the things that they ARE NOT doing while they engage in their addiction.
Another activity that is efficient is driving a car instead of walking. Do you ban cars for your kid and force it to walk for an hour to school? If not, why do you think one kind of efficiency is fine but not the other? Surely walking to school would be way more positive on your child than banning screens? I'm sure your kid would scream and complain if you forced the kid to walk everywhere, because the kid knows there is an easier way and that will limit the activities and experiences the kid can partake in. If you live in a non-car centric area just think public transit instead of cars, banning efficiency works the same.
What you want to be true isn’t necessarily universal.
But if it affects enough of them then it's a problem worth looking into.
OP’s kid could have major depression for all we know, their anecdotes about their kids being extrapolated to all kids is absurd.
If the OP genuinely observed such changes in behavior, then that's different than ascribing a direct cause to screen time. Perhaps some children respond differently. Perhaps other factors play out by means of screen time. Perhaps what their kids are doing on their phones is different (we shouldn't forget the affect of the content on the screen). Who knows, and from a parenting point of view, it may not matter all that much when deciding what to do. If reducing screen time improves symptoms, then that's a good start, at least.