[rmxt]

If your takeaway from your link was that "it's fine" and not "that further research is necessary"... you are going one step further than the article.

I can understand why people don't want screen time when their kids are toddlers -- you only get to raise your kids once. If the jury is out on whether or not "screentime" is bad, some parents err on the side of caution. Regardless, kids are malleable enough that any "familiarity gap" that the "iPhone user from age 2" has over the "iPhone user from age 6" has will likely be near zero within a few months at that age.

What benefits have you found your child to have derived from relatively early smartphone use beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day?

My personal take is that, as with all things, moderation is key.

[rayiner]

The article says: "While we agree that the well-being of children is a crucial issue and that the impact of screen-based lifestyles demands serious investigation, the message that many parents will hear is that screens are inherently harmful. This is simply not supported by solid research and evidence."

If an effect is so small that existing studies haven't measured it yet, then it's probably fine to ignore it even if future studies might find a very small effect.

> you only get to raise your kids once

> If the jury is out ... err on the side of caution

> as with all things, moderation is key

It's one thing when you use hand-wavy platitudes to guide your own parenting choices. The problem is that supposedly rational organizations (WHO, government bodies) use similar hand-waving platitudes in setting official recommendations and policies.

[wutbrodo]

> If an effect is so small that existing studies haven't measured it yet, then it's probably fine to ignore it even if future studies might find a very small effect.

This is just blind scientism of the worst kind. The only things you can draw this conclusion about are _the specific possible effects that have been studied_. The possibility of screens around children all day hasn't been around for very long at all, and it's not irrational for parents to suspect that there may be effects that would only show up in, e.g., longitudinal studies.

Hell, the _very statement that you're quoting_ uses the words "the impact of screen-based lifestyles demands serious investigation". Parental caution (and those of institutional recommendations) in the lead-up to a more fleshed-out body of scientific literature on the topic isn't unreasonable at all.

[rayiner]

> This is just blind scientism of the worst kind

No, it's an inference drawn form imperfect information, which is the bedrock of policy-making and civilized life in general. Screens have been around for decades now. They have been the subject of significant study in different contexts. The average American has watched more than four hours of TV per day for more than thirty years. An entire generation was raised in front of the TV. If there was a major first order effect from "screen time," we'd know about it by now.

[TwelveNights]

Still, the topic isn't strictly on people's interactions with a screen. The biggest difference is availability. You couldn't carry your T.V. with you everywhere you go, and it can't do even close to as much as a mobile phone can.

I'll agree that there's imperfect information because of how new the technology is, and how it's difficult to study the long-term effects because of that. However, erring on the side of caution while doing something as non-deterministic as raising a child because you don't know the consequences is not an incorrect course of action.

[pbhjpbhj]

>beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day //

That sounds like anything but an advantage if you eventually seek to have children be independently capable and willing to rely on their own resources.

[rayiner]

> That sounds like anything but an advantage if you eventually seek to have children be independently capable and willing to rely on their own resources.

I mean, this is fuzzy-headed thinking. You can flip that around just as easily: allowing a kid to reach out to a parent as needed using her own agency can reduce the anxiety that makes children clingy. It's like training wheels: do they encourage or discourage biking without them?

[saint_fiasco]

On the contrary. Being able to communicate with parents at any time lets them take more calculated risks and grow more independent.

If I had a cellphone when I was a kid, taking the bus for the first time would not have been so terrifying.

[pbhjpbhj]

>If I had a cellphone when I was a kid, taking the bus for the first time would not have been so terrifying. //

Isn't it being "terrifying" and yet you having the gumption to do it what builds your character and prepares you to take on things without having your hand held? You were relying on your self - your skills, your organisation; and not on your parents?

[zimpenfish]

"And now, little Jack, it's time to learn to swim. [throws child in pool] C'mon, use your gumption! Stop drowning! And stop all that yelling. This is building character!

Oh, he's drowned. Never mind! Better luck with little Fred!"

[pbhjpbhj]

There's a lot of variables and fine balance at play, for sure.

Riding the bus alone for the first time: IIRC I was 11, but in a small village, I'd already ride a few miles from home on my push bike.

I wouldn't expect death as the most likely outcome of a public transit ride at this sort of age.

There's no one size fits all approach to raising children.

[saint_fiasco]

Having a way to talk to parents in an emergency isn't having your hand held. It's like a parachute that allows you to do more dangerous things than you would do otherwise. I didn't end up actually using that cellphone because I didn't get lost, but that doesn't mean the phone was useless.

Maybe this is not the case anymore because phones are cheap but when I was a kid I felt proud that my parents trusted me with such an expensive piece of hardware. I considered it a responsibility.

[jackvalentine]

Agreed - discomfort and fear have value. If you can't stomach the low-stakes game of using public transport without a lifeline how will you handle anything more serious?

[jdmichal]

In addition to other responses, I'd like to point out that it also reinforces shared values and expectations of connectivity and communication between family members.