[nevinera]

When science doesn't match your personal observations, that doesn't make the science wrong. It also doesn't make your personal observations wrong - it usually (in my experience) means that you're measuring/observing different things (assuming you're reasonably intelligent, which I am doing). In this case, "cognitive development and well being" are complex concepts that probably do not map exactly (or maybe even grossly) between their definitions in the study and their experiential meanings in your head.

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.

[cheeseomlit]

When it comes to social science and studies involving self reporting I don't give it the same weight as I would to a study where all the variables are quantifiable and controlled

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

[nevinera]

Oh I have no problem with doubting the study (I definitely doubt its conclusions myself, since I don't think "screen time" is a meaningfully monolithic concept to study in the first place, without even getting into the details of the methodology). But there are good ways to doubt and bad ways, and "this study is junk because my kids misbehave more when they watch TV" is far on the wrong end.

[Fire-Dragon-DoL]

Interesting the concept if "misbehaving when watching tv". I have a clear memory that I would get a mild headache and feel bored if I watched too much tv, and when I look at my children I notice they are watching too much tv by how "active" their body becomes while in front of the tv, that's the signal boredom is kicking in and a good time to turn it off. Usually prevent things going worse.

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

[slowmovintarget]

The difference is that the science will have tightly defined terms for "cognitive development" and "well being" that is different than what a parent is measuring when they're looking at agitation, misbehavior, impulsiveness... etc.

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.)

[sn9]

No this study is actually garbage. What it considers screen time is way too broad to be useful.

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...

[nevinera]

I don't disagree with you a bit! Science should be doubted in the correct ways, and for appropriate reasons, that's one of the main things I come to HN comments for. My issue with the OP was with his reasons - anecdotes about your children and personal opinions about the world might _trigger_ doubts, but they aren't good reasons to base those doubts on.

[sn9]

I've certainly been guilty of similar acts of pedantry so you'll hear no criticism from me on that front!

[nevinera]

And of course, talking about all of this as if 'screen time' is all the same is _insane_. Anyone that thinks watching youtubers screech at each other for hours is equivalent (for the purposes of mental development) to watching an adapted Broadway musical has not put any thought into the topic, and that's entirely setting aside the topic of interactive vs passive entertainment being lumped together..

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 -.-

[upsidesinclude]

Not "wrong", dubious.

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'

[vidarh]

> Every sensible person can see that children are not developing as they have in the past

Can we? On what evidence?

The "no evidence refrain" happens because people keep advancing claims without even trying to back them up.

[nevinera]

If you'd like to analyze their approaches to call the study 'dubious', I won't argue with you (it is; they are not strong ones). But making that assertion solely on the position that your personal observations of your own children disagree puts you in the same category as my wife's friend that rejects vaccines because her mom took one and still got covid. That's not how individual observations interact with science.