[Closed] Interesting research on kids and technology

"interesting" - yep that's one word for it.

Reads like a pamphlet on "Reefer Madness" or "The Dangers of Onanism". 😆

Their use of the word "technology" is really bizarre - a see-saw is a piece of technology, is this included? a spoon is also a piece of technology, is that also included? what about nappies?

Thanks for pointing out my error in using the word technology. It''s quite an interesting article though isn't it?
Done by real doctors carrying out real research.

It's not your error iolo - it's hers:

[i]"The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics state infants aged 0-2 years should not have any exposure to [b]technology[/b]"[/i]

Right - no exposure to technology - so babies should apparently be raised in caves and fed on foraged fruit? 😀

Done by real doctors carrying out real research.

What respected peer-reviewed journal was this article published in?

(And she's not a doctor. She's an occupational therapist and founder of a company that [url= http://www.zoneinproducts.com/ ]sells products[/url] to wean kids off this terrible drug of "technology")

Pirates and global warming

If the cave is naturally forming then that would be ok, but if you have specifically dug the cave in order to house the child then that would would be a piece of technology, and according to this research, would be detrimental to the child's development.

Foraged fruit is also fine, as long as you don't use any implements to feed it to them, or collect it, that would be dangerous to the child's development.

This does seem to be advocating the kind of society that the Amish would consider backward.

Is all technological everything equally bad? Is watching Yo Gabba Gabba (do not attepmt to find out more about this garbage you will regret it) interspersed with adverts for toys the same as solving puzzles on a tablet?

EDIT wait, she's against technology but sells products aiming to improve attention span? Has she ever seen a kid with a tablet?

Yep, she argues that [i]"Early brain development is determined by environmental stimuli, or lack thereof"[/i] but that technology is [i]"[b]over[/b]-stimulating"[/i].

So what stimulates just the right amount? Well funnily enough it turns out that [url= http://www.zoneinproducts.com/movein-program.html ]her $160 board game[/url] is just perfect 😆

[img] [/img]

Well funnily enough it turns out that her $160 board game is just perfect

Now that definitely looks like pretty advanced technology to me.

When paper and ink started to be used in schools, there were concerns that kids wouldn't know how to properly use slates anymore.

And how many people can use a slide rule or a logarithmic tables now that everyone has these new fangled calculators. 😀

How many people have forgotten how to spell simple words now that everyone has a smartphone/tablet?

Quite a few judging by this forum. 💡

(Edited for grammatical errors :lol:)

'The children are our future. But children who overuse technology have no future.'

Apart from in technology, where they'll be experts. Can't see that being useful though. Anyway, best get back to moving my piece around the board to find out what my company will do tomorrow. **** me, a six! Get in 😀

How many people have forgotten how to spell simple words now that everyone has a smartphone/tablet?

I'd say most folk spend a lot MORE time reading and writing these days thanks to technology.

Just think how much you read/write on this forum every day - and that's for "fun".

I agree that the board stuff is shit.
Making money on selling it is shit.
Most of the points raised are not shit though.
The points raised do make you think.
You can't disagree about that.

Most of the points raised are not shit though.

Not "shit" - but neither are they the evidence-based conclusions that she claims them to be.

The points raised do make you think.
You can't disagree about that.

That's true. They did create measurable neural activity. I can't disagree. 😀

But did they make me re-consider my position on continuing to use appropriate tech to further my children's education and development? No. Not for a moment.

Books, apps, songs, games, and even TV - they all have a place IMO.

GrahamS - Member

I'd say most folk spend a lot MORE time reading and writing these days thanks to technology.

Just think how much you read/write on this forum every day - and that's for "fun".

I agree, but it is quantity not quality.
Piss poor spelling is repeated with such frequency and text speak has encroached so deeply that we are arriving at the point where comprehension suffers.

Piss poor spelling is repeated with such frequency and text speak has encroached so deeply that we are arriving at the point where comprehension suffers.

Language morphs with every generation.

When was the last time you used an [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86 ]Ash[/url] or a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s ]long S[/url]?

[img] [/img]

^ Terrible spelling 😉

Language morphs with every generation.

When was the last time you used an Ash or a long S?

A lot more than a generation ago. 😉

I'm perfectly happy with language evolving, but that isn't what is happening, it is devolving.

Iolo has a point. There is a lot that needs to be discussed and thought about with regards 'technology'.

SOME kids TV is pretty awful - flashing whizz bang invasive hyper awfulness, and some is relaxing and delightful. I've seen lots of stuff written about kids and TV, but not one considered the actual content. They were all American, and US kids TV is far worse generally. Even the nice quiet shows have awful adverts inbetween. This is terrible imo, and our kids either watch CBeebies (and hardly any of that nowadays) or self chosen stuff on iPlayer/Netflix. No ads.

It's just another area where you have to think about what your kids are getting from something, and if it's what's good for them.

A lot more than a generation ago

Doesn't have to be.

For example, do you spell it "Encyclopedia", "Encyclopaedia" or "Encyclopædia" ?

"Pediatrics", "paediatrics" or "pædiatrics"? etc

These are pretty recent language changes.

Perhaps in 50 years time we'll be happily spelling "specific" as "pacific" and "ask" as "arks" 😉

SOME kids TV is pretty awful - flashing whizz bang invasive hyper awfulness, and some is relaxing and delightful.

Agreed - but that is content not medium.

Similar could be said for some kid's literature for example - that doesn't mean we should discourage kids from reading, it just means we have to be selective. As we should be.

I watched "too much" TV as a kid. I also played computer games. Despite this I've become a functioning adult with a masters degree and a BMI of 21.

My kids also watch TV and use computers. They're managing to become pretty well rounded* little people.

*personality, not shape

Done by real doctors carrying out real research.

Apologies if this sounds insulting, but from that statement I'm jumping to the conclusion that you aren't a scientist. Statements and ludicrous assertions do not become true, scientific "facts" just by putting a name after them in brackets (edlong, 2014).

Have you actually checked out any of the "evidence" cited in support of some very stark assertions? Maybe have a peruse of the references in the footnotes of the article. Oh no, sorry, there doesn't actually appear to be a proper list of citations at the end. Good luck googling from the random references in the brackets then.

I tried to find, for example "Rowan, 2010" as it apparently provides the evidence that backs up the statement that "Use of technology under the age of 12 years, is detrimental to child development and learning" but I got some stuff about a bishop and some bloke at the University of Bath who did Cassava: an appraisal of its phytochemistry and its biotechnological prospects.

This is bullshit (very badly) dressed up as science with a few stylistic cues that look vaguely like science if your last exposure to it was O Level Chemistry. Please apply some critical thought before promoting this crap as anything other than a sales and marketing tool that plays to the fears of parents in order to sell garbage.

Did it make me think? Yes, it made me think that there are some pretty cynical people out there who will try and make a quick buck by playing on fear and ignorance, and that there are plenty of idiots out there who buy this shit.

iolo - Member

The points raised do make you think.

They do but not, I think, in the way you expected.

Like, ffs, look at this:

Sleep Deprivation
75% of children are allowed technology in their bedrooms (Kaiser Foundation 2010). 75% of children aged 9 and 10 years are sleep deprived to the extent that their grades are detrimentally impacted (Boston College 2012).

Let's take 2 different things which affect 75% of kids and just say, hey, that's the same number, the first must cause the second. That's not science, it's Snap. Incidentally Snap causes Card Dementia, you shouldn't let kids play Snap. Play healthy wholesome Movein instead.