Like sure, of course, don't let the kid just mindlessly watch TV. But removing the TV entirely from all spaces they could possibly be in is too extreme and the benefits of that are not clear other than expressing the parents' own maniacal anxiety which (in of itself) is not a good thing to teach the child.
Most people use password123 as password, and like using the same password on every site, so saying that's bad is a bit silly?
What kind of logic is that?
> benefits of that are not clear other than expressing the parents' own maniacal anxiety which (in of itself)
The coupling of the benefits being supposedly "not clear" while "maniacal anxiety" being absolutely certain is just classic.
That's a ridiculous false equivalence and you know it.
Choosing a poor password is nowhere near analogous to the investment and energy requirement of creating completely TV-free spaces for children.
I'm questioning whether that degree of separating is consistent with the medical literature, not whether we should "do something bad because we've always done something bad"
But that's the whole argument. It's silly because many are used to it, it's too extreme a change for people who are used to it.
If the majority of people somewhere did indeed use "Password123" everywhere and had been for decades, they'd find excuses too, one of them that it's not so bad as "Password". They might have a whole process around dealing with while not seeing the fallout.
> the investment and energy requirement of creating completely TV-free spaces for children.
Huh? You simply don't turn on the TV when the kid is there. If you want to save even more money and energy, don't get a TV.
If there is a TV at a restaurant and the kid sees it, do you tell them to turn it off for you?
If you walk by the electronics section at a walmart do you demand the workers turn off all the TVs before you pass by?
Do you scout every location prior to visiting to make sure you avoid TVs at all costs?
My point is the framing of kid cannot even _hear_ the TV without ruining the child is ridiculous.
Today we raise our kids the similarly: they watched some Peppa Pig and later Paw Patrol _very_ occasionally (the older one maybe starting at 3, the younger starting at 2), now (kids 6 and 8) they sometimes watch an episode of something, or we watch a movie together. Sometimes they can check out Lego sets online, or use the school-provided learning website (Anton).
The kids also have excellent detail memory and observation skills, great imagination (they tell us many stories and play with Lego in very unintended ways), very good language vocabulary and generally fly through school. Again: probably not a coincidence (even though some of it may be inherited IQ). No glasses needed so far.
I'm not saying everybody needs to do it like this exactly, but I'm happy with many decisions.
I have no idea what happened with regards to TV usage between age 0-3 though, lol. But I know it wasn't on in the background - watching TV was and remains an active activity. I could never understand why some people have a TV show on in the background while they do other things, but then I usually have music playing.
youre gonna have a hard time convincing me that rugrats and bluey are a negative impact on development.
that said, tv for a 0-1 does feel icky. like i wouldnt recommend tossing them in a bouncer in front of a tv for hours.
The way the post is framed, it makes it seem like you have to completely remove all TVs from the child's life to be consistent with the medical literature which doesn't seem correct.
Everything in moderation; an episode a day can't be too bad, but having it running all the time, or it being the only thing they watch will have consequences.
All the time makes it a digital pacifier, it'll cause anxiety if it's ever off - this is what a lot of people already have a problem with, like, I'll pull out my phone in a quiet moment. And it being the only thing they watch limits their world view and potential.
It's like books, some people only read Harry Potter or one of the YA series and it's what they (need to?) relate everything to. A newish subreddit was opened up about that, https://www.reddit.com/r/readanotherbook/. Top post has someone claiming Harry Potter's author who shall not be named was the first author writing about classism.