[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