This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/books/review/are-iphones-bad-for-kids.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Are iPhones Bad for Kids? Are iPhones Bad for Kids?
(about 7 hours later)
THE ART OF SCREEN TIME How Your Family Can Balance Digital Media and Real Life By Anya Kamenetz 266 pp. PublicAffairs. $27.
BE THE PARENT, PLEASE Stop Banning Seesaws and Start Banning Snapchat By Naomi Schaefer Riley 251 pp. Templeton Press. $24.95.
There’s one in every neighborhood: a parent who allows unlimited screen time. They exist to make the rest of us feel better. Our own offspring might spend hours texting or watching cartoons. But at least we have rules. Our kids can sustain a conversation, cope with fleeting moments of boredom and last a birthday party without demanding a video game.There’s one in every neighborhood: a parent who allows unlimited screen time. They exist to make the rest of us feel better. Our own offspring might spend hours texting or watching cartoons. But at least we have rules. Our kids can sustain a conversation, cope with fleeting moments of boredom and last a birthday party without demanding a video game.
When we pass these other families in the supermarket, their dazed toddlers staring into iPads, we think — smug but terrified — we’re not that bad.When we pass these other families in the supermarket, their dazed toddlers staring into iPads, we think — smug but terrified — we’re not that bad.
Or are we? Two new books about kids and screens — Anya Kamenetz’s “The Art of Screen Time” and Naomi Schaefer Riley’s “Be the Parent, Please” — examine the evidence and offer advice for anxious parents. How much screen time is too much? Is “digital media” like food: O.K. if you consume good-quality ingredients, in moderation? Or is it more like cigarettes or even heroin, possibly unsafe at any dose? And might screens be just another way to guilt parents — and mothers, in particular — into thinking that we’re not doing enough?Or are we? Two new books about kids and screens — Anya Kamenetz’s “The Art of Screen Time” and Naomi Schaefer Riley’s “Be the Parent, Please” — examine the evidence and offer advice for anxious parents. How much screen time is too much? Is “digital media” like food: O.K. if you consume good-quality ingredients, in moderation? Or is it more like cigarettes or even heroin, possibly unsafe at any dose? And might screens be just another way to guilt parents — and mothers, in particular — into thinking that we’re not doing enough?
Alas, the evidence is incomplete. Researchers aren’t allowed to overstimulate a random sample of babies to see what happens to their brains. (Though as Kamenetz says, you can do this to mice, and they go a little nuts.) Scientists even have trouble running studies in which some participants watch less; one said he could get families to reduce their screen times only by 20 minutes. And the iPad hasn’t even celebrated its eighth birthday.Alas, the evidence is incomplete. Researchers aren’t allowed to overstimulate a random sample of babies to see what happens to their brains. (Though as Kamenetz says, you can do this to mice, and they go a little nuts.) Scientists even have trouble running studies in which some participants watch less; one said he could get families to reduce their screen times only by 20 minutes. And the iPad hasn’t even celebrated its eighth birthday.
But there are worrying correlations. Kids who watch more than two hours of TV per day have double the risk of childhood obesity. Those who watch screens before bed sleep less, making it harder to concentrate and learn. And simulated violence can desensitize children to real-life suffering, and is linked to increased anxiety and fear.But there are worrying correlations. Kids who watch more than two hours of TV per day have double the risk of childhood obesity. Those who watch screens before bed sleep less, making it harder to concentrate and learn. And simulated violence can desensitize children to real-life suffering, and is linked to increased anxiety and fear.
Kamenetz, lead digital education correspondent for National Public Radio, is the more soothing voice. She points out that not every child — or even every heavy user — will suffer ill effects. As with food allergies, ”for lots of kids, a peanut is just a peanut.” She advocates an approach inspired by Michael Pollan’s well-known dictate on food: “Enjoy screens. Not too much. Mostly with others.” (Her most upsetting conclusion, echoed by Riley and the American Academy of Pediatrics, is that parents should watch alongside toddlers.)Kamenetz, lead digital education correspondent for National Public Radio, is the more soothing voice. She points out that not every child — or even every heavy user — will suffer ill effects. As with food allergies, ”for lots of kids, a peanut is just a peanut.” She advocates an approach inspired by Michael Pollan’s well-known dictate on food: “Enjoy screens. Not too much. Mostly with others.” (Her most upsetting conclusion, echoed by Riley and the American Academy of Pediatrics, is that parents should watch alongside toddlers.)
Riley, a former New York Post columnist who is a visiting fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, sees an insidious cultural problem and a moral failure by parents. She compares screens to alcohol and gambling: Not every child will get hooked, but it’s better to be safe. And by handing our kids screens, we are choosing “not to parent.”Riley, a former New York Post columnist who is a visiting fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, sees an insidious cultural problem and a moral failure by parents. She compares screens to alcohol and gambling: Not every child will get hooked, but it’s better to be safe. And by handing our kids screens, we are choosing “not to parent.”
Riley advocates radically scaling back children’s screen time, and intensively surveilling online behavior. “Many kids will be fine even without these restrictions, and some kids will fall into trouble even with them. But as parents, it’s time for us to stop playing the odds.”Riley advocates radically scaling back children’s screen time, and intensively surveilling online behavior. “Many kids will be fine even without these restrictions, and some kids will fall into trouble even with them. But as parents, it’s time for us to stop playing the odds.”
I might bristle at Riley’s scolding tone, but I recognize her description of a friend who’s in a “constant low-level battle” over screens with her three sons. “It was like watching her swat flies. As soon as she sent one child outside or got one to read a book, another would sneak on to a computer.”I might bristle at Riley’s scolding tone, but I recognize her description of a friend who’s in a “constant low-level battle” over screens with her three sons. “It was like watching her swat flies. As soon as she sent one child outside or got one to read a book, another would sneak on to a computer.”
Even if digital media isn’t diabolical, it has opportunity costs. The hours kids spend on devices is time they could have spent reading, studying, interacting with other humans or frolicking outdoors (there’s a bit of nature worship in Riley’s book).Even if digital media isn’t diabolical, it has opportunity costs. The hours kids spend on devices is time they could have spent reading, studying, interacting with other humans or frolicking outdoors (there’s a bit of nature worship in Riley’s book).
Of course, many parents can’t go an hour without consulting screens themselves. In a 2014 study, researchers in a fast-food restaurant observed caregivers on smartphones, ignoring children’s bids for attention. The caregivers finally scold the children or issue “robotic” instructions, sometimes without even looking up.Of course, many parents can’t go an hour without consulting screens themselves. In a 2014 study, researchers in a fast-food restaurant observed caregivers on smartphones, ignoring children’s bids for attention. The caregivers finally scold the children or issue “robotic” instructions, sometimes without even looking up.
But is this proof that screens make us terrible parents? If we’re using them while driving, then definitely. Car crashes are a leading cause of death in school-age children, and cellphones are a factor in a quarter of fatal crashes.But is this proof that screens make us terrible parents? If we’re using them while driving, then definitely. Car crashes are a leading cause of death in school-age children, and cellphones are a factor in a quarter of fatal crashes.
But in the rest of life, the net impact is less clear. Modern parents spend far more time with their children than parents did in the 1960s. Yes, a mother reading work emails at the playground has briefly stopped interacting with her child. But Kamenetz — a mother of two — says if she couldn’t do that, she’d need to be at the office.But in the rest of life, the net impact is less clear. Modern parents spend far more time with their children than parents did in the 1960s. Yes, a mother reading work emails at the playground has briefly stopped interacting with her child. But Kamenetz — a mother of two — says if she couldn’t do that, she’d need to be at the office.
We know it’s crucial to stimulate and speak to young children, and our generation of parents complies to a possibly unprecedented — and exhausting — degree. Kamenetz notes that we need occasional breaks from this. She bemoans “an ideological stance that judges mothers for not being fully available to their children at all times and that scapegoats working-class families in particular.”We know it’s crucial to stimulate and speak to young children, and our generation of parents complies to a possibly unprecedented — and exhausting — degree. Kamenetz notes that we need occasional breaks from this. She bemoans “an ideological stance that judges mothers for not being fully available to their children at all times and that scapegoats working-class families in particular.”
Class issues buzz around conversations about screen time. We’ve all read about the Silicon Valley executives who won’t let their children go online. Mothers who used to boast that their babies drank only breast milk now claim their preschoolers have never touched an iPad. (These same children will later be dispatched to pricey, screen-free summer camps.)Class issues buzz around conversations about screen time. We’ve all read about the Silicon Valley executives who won’t let their children go online. Mothers who used to boast that their babies drank only breast milk now claim their preschoolers have never touched an iPad. (These same children will later be dispatched to pricey, screen-free summer camps.)
Low-income families — and especially single parents — can’t afford to police their children’s screen use as assiduously. Kamenetz writes that this requires more social supports, like guaranteed paid parental leave. I’d argue that universal health care and a higher minimum wage would help, too.Low-income families — and especially single parents — can’t afford to police their children’s screen use as assiduously. Kamenetz writes that this requires more social supports, like guaranteed paid parental leave. I’d argue that universal health care and a higher minimum wage would help, too.
Of course, screens are an issue even in countries with great social services. In 2016, the city of Helsinki ran a campaign warning Finnish parents that they were neglecting children by spending too much time online.Of course, screens are an issue even in countries with great social services. In 2016, the city of Helsinki ran a campaign warning Finnish parents that they were neglecting children by spending too much time online.
In France, where I live, parents are struggling to get their heads around the dangers. The government recently announced that, from September, it will ban phones in primary and secondary schools, for reasons of “public health.” There are permissive parents to scoff at here too, but they generally advocate setting firm limits. Meal times are typically sacrosanct, screen-free zones.In France, where I live, parents are struggling to get their heads around the dangers. The government recently announced that, from September, it will ban phones in primary and secondary schools, for reasons of “public health.” There are permissive parents to scoff at here too, but they generally advocate setting firm limits. Meal times are typically sacrosanct, screen-free zones.
Most French parents already believe in a conclusion that Kamenetz and Riley endorse: If you don’t constantly entertain kids, they’ll learn to entertain themselves. And the French are suspicious of too much of anything. The biggest reason I hear for why kids don’t spend more time on devices isn’t that screens are terrible; it’s that they don’t have time.Most French parents already believe in a conclusion that Kamenetz and Riley endorse: If you don’t constantly entertain kids, they’ll learn to entertain themselves. And the French are suspicious of too much of anything. The biggest reason I hear for why kids don’t spend more time on devices isn’t that screens are terrible; it’s that they don’t have time.
That’s basically Kamenetz’s message too. Her best advice might be to prioritize other activities, and allow screens only afterward. “You will be more effective as a parent, and have more fun as a family, if you drop the guilt and embrace the good that screens have to offer, while balancing media with other priorities.”That’s basically Kamenetz’s message too. Her best advice might be to prioritize other activities, and allow screens only afterward. “You will be more effective as a parent, and have more fun as a family, if you drop the guilt and embrace the good that screens have to offer, while balancing media with other priorities.”
Sleep is paramount: She recommends no screens before bedtime, and none in bedrooms, ever. And she advocates communication over surveillance, making questions like “what did you see online today?” part of dinnertime conversations.Sleep is paramount: She recommends no screens before bedtime, and none in bedrooms, ever. And she advocates communication over surveillance, making questions like “what did you see online today?” part of dinnertime conversations.
I liked Kamenetz’s unpanicky, thoughtful critique. Both writers digest lots of material. (Kamenetz helpfully includes a four-page summary.) While it wasn’t thrilling to consume even well-written books on kids and screens, it was worth reflecting on the evidence, and reckoning with my family’s relationship to these consuming devices. Then I could return to checking my email.I liked Kamenetz’s unpanicky, thoughtful critique. Both writers digest lots of material. (Kamenetz helpfully includes a four-page summary.) While it wasn’t thrilling to consume even well-written books on kids and screens, it was worth reflecting on the evidence, and reckoning with my family’s relationship to these consuming devices. Then I could return to checking my email.