Simplicity Parenting (31 page)

Since only 6 percent of American parents are even aware of the AAP’s recommendations,
⁶
companies such as Disney, Warner Bros., and Fisher-Price have not been hampered in marketing an explosion of so-called “educational” video programs—such as Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby—designed specifically for babies and toddlers. The promises implicit in the video titles, and outlined in the marketing campaigns—“Together we can help to make your child the next Baby Prodigy!”—are much more compelling than the AAP’s conclusion that watching these videos is not helpful and may well be harmful to children preschool age and under. The science behind these marketing claims may be specious, but the emotional pull is strong: capitalizing on parents’ aspirations for their children, and their fears that a child’s intellectual “window of opportunity” slams shut after three years. Baby Einstein went on the market in 1997; by 2003, one out of three American children had watched a Baby Einstein video.
⁷
Multiple studies have now concluded that watching television, even such educational programming as
Sesame Street
, actually delays rather than promotes language development.
⁸

Indeed, numerous studies before and since the AAP’s recommendation have indicated that the youngest among us—infants and children below school age—may be the most vulnerable to television’s negative effects.
⁹
Yet in 2006, researchers found that by three months, 40 percent of babies are regular viewers of DVDs, videos, or television; by two years of age, that percentage rises to 90 percent.
¹⁰
So, despite all the data on the “risks” side of the television equation, we continue to allow and even encourage our very young children to use electronic media, establishing habits and dependencies that can continue, and escalate, as they grow.

Kids and adolescents—ages eight to eighteen—spend an average of a little more than three hours a day watching television, though that
doesn’t include time spent watching videos or playing video games. When all media use (TV, computers, print, audio, videos or movies, and video games) is taken into account, the average is just under six and a half hours per day.
¹¹
Television remains the largest component of that.

Parents joke about how their kids appear “hypnotized” in front of the television. In
Scientific American
, Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi looked at the ways that “television addiction is no mere metaphor,” noting that EEG studies show diminished mental activity during television viewing compared to other activities. Viewers describe themselves as “relaxed” and “passive” while watching, yet while the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue. Survey participants commonly reflected that television had “somehow absorbed or sucked out their energy, leaving them depleted,” with “more difficulty concentrating after viewing than before.” Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi equate this effect with the first law of physics: “A body at rest tends to stay at rest.”
¹³
Further corroboration of this can be seen with studies linking the alarming rise in childhood obesity to increased time spent watching TV.

Researchers such as Dmitri Christakis of Children’s Hospital in Seattle and Jane Healy, author of
Your Child’s Growing Mind
, have questioned the effects of television programming techniques on brain chemistry. The “orienting reflex,” or OR, is a technique used in children’s shows to capture a child’s attention. Essentially, if a child sees or hears something the brain doesn’t recognize as correct or normal—flashing, animated figures, rapid zooms and pans, dancing letters—he or she will focus on it until the brain determines that it is not a threat. “We think that with continued exposure to high intensity, unrealistic action, you’re conditioning the mind to expect that level of input,” Christakis explains. In comparison to the high stimulation that television offers, real life can seem slow, and children can respond to it with boredom and inattentiveness.
¹⁴

Television viewing’s combination of neural hyperstimulation and complete physical passivity clearly doesn’t stimulate the brain’s development
in the same way that interacting with the world does. While this is especially true in the first three years of life, it continues to be the case throughout the brain’s period of growth, through adolescence. Michael Gurian, author of
The Minds of Boys
, has pointed out how the passivity of television is especially worrisome for young boys, whose brain growth is particularly dependent on physical movement.
¹⁵

Also of great concern are the effects of television violence—and video game violence—on children. In 2000, at a bipartisan Capitol Hill conference, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry issued this joint statement: “Viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are measurable and long-lasting.”
¹⁶

Young children don’t view violence in the same way adults do: Until the age of six or seven, children are developmentally and psychologically unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy.
¹⁷
So when they view brutal acts on television they see them as “real.” What’s more, by viewing violence—murder, rape, or assaults—from the comfort and safety of their home, snuggled up on the couch with loved ones, while perhaps eating snacks or a meal, children (and adults for that matter) become desensitized to violence, learning to equate it with pleasure.

The same disconnect between violence and reality exists with video games; playing violent video games can desensitize individuals to real violence, making it less shocking, and more acceptable.
¹⁸
The desensitization is further reinforced when the player is actually rewarded for violent acts. In a study titled “When I Die, I Feel Small,” the seventh-and eighth-grade participants reported that the person they wanted to be “was very similar to their favorite video game character.” Beyond the physiological and moral effects involved, beyond what a child feels or fails to feel in relation to the action of a game, when they identify so strongly with characters, their self-concept and identity are also affected.
¹⁹

Have you ever wanted to read a book before you saw the film version of it? You chose to imagine what the characters would look like, to conjure a world mentally, as you read, before one was presented to you on the big screen. This internal imaging leads to creative imagination and higher forms of learning. In simplifying screens, you give children time to conjure their own worlds—not just through reading, but in terms of active and imaginary play—before they become passive consumers of entertainment “worlds” and their ancillary products.

The same argument can be made in terms of computers. A strong degree of computer literacy will be essential for children growing up today. Yet I feel strongly that computers, like any tool, are only helpful when age-appropriate. I don’t believe they are meant for, or beneficial to, children under seven or eight years of age. And as any less-than-tech-savvy adult knows, most children come by computer proficiency quite quickly and naturally. In
Failure to Connect
, psychologist Jane Healy notes that kids who don’t start using computers until adolescence gain competency within months equal to that of children who’ve used them since they were toddlers.
²⁰

The late MIT professor and pioneer of artificial intelligence Joseph Weizenbaum came to wonder about the appropriateness of computer technology for young children. He questioned whether we want to expose our young children to artificial minds without human values or even common sense. Weizenbaum believed that there are transcendent qualities of human interaction that can never be duplicated by machines; he used as an example “the wordless glance that a father and mother share over the bed of their sleeping child.”
²¹

Used too soon, does the two-dimensional screen of computers actually interfere with a young child’s complex learning systems of relationships and sensory exploration? I question that as well. I don’t believe that computers should be a part of a young child’s (age seven and under) daily life. How curious will a child be, how mentally agile, creative, and persistent in seeking answers to their questions if, from a young age, they learn to Google first, and ask questions later (or not at all)?

“More!” “Faster!” and “Earlier!” is the bass beat of the tech, media, and entertainment industries. As adults, in our work and leisure, we may be keeping up with it all, ever mindful and appreciative of innovations. However, as parents, we can choose a slower, simpler path for our young children. Our relation to media and technology is not an “all or nothing” or “one size fits all” proposition, just as our needs—as children and adult—vary greatly. And as parents, we have control over media’s place in our homes, and in our children’s daily lives. We can do without; we can set and enforce limits. We can harness the power of less.

For families with children ages seven and under, I counsel doing without the television. I do so for three reasons: 1) Because I feel strongly that its negative, long-lasting effects far outweigh its benefits to young children; 2) its absence greatly supports the goals of simplification (less overwhelm, consumerism, and sense of entitlement); and 3) based on my experience, dispensing with television is not as hard as most families fear it will be.

The initial period of withdrawal is usually two or three weeks, during which the restlessness and “I’m bored!” complaints will gradually dissipate and a range of other activities will take the place of viewing. Most parents report that not having a television is much easier for their kids than they thought it would be, and for them it’s considerably less work than constantly monitoring and limiting “tube time.” (Families who’ve gone without television often report that the hardest part is dealing with the comments and unrequested “donations” of televisions made by friends and family.)

To say “No thanks” is not always the popular choice, either in our kids’ eyes—“But Mom!
Everyone
else has one!”—or our peers’—“No TV?! Is this some sort of cult thing?” Choosing not to have a television, at least while your kids are young, does not say “Television is an unqualified evil” or “We want to go back to life in the 1940s.” It says, simply, on balance, “No thanks.” It is a choice for engagement (with people, and the three-dimensional world) over stimulation, and activity over passivity, especially while kids are young. By choosing to banish the tube, in one step you will greatly diminish your children’s exposure to such hallmarks of adult life as violence and consumerism. Most of all, you will expand—almost doubling, on average—your family’s free time.

The “babysitting” effect of television is important, I’ll grant you, especially when it means the difference between a shower, or a load of laundry, that wouldn’t otherwise get done. (“Yes! At
last
he’s making some sense!” you may be saying.) But the long-term reality is this: The rich and diverse habits your children will develop without television will serve them well throughout their lives. It will also simplify your parenting enormously over the long haul. Without automatically “tuning in” for something to do (or Googling the answer to any question), your kids will find deep inner wells of creativity and resourcefulness. Better, more reliable babysitters don’t exist.

Banishing the television (“Uncle Andy”) while the kids are very young is the most controversial of my recommendations for simplifying screens. I have seen firsthand how remarkably effective it can be in honoring
the tremendous growth and creativity of early childhood, as well as its simpler, slower pace. My experience has left me no doubt that for most families, the benefits of this step far outweigh its difficulty. I would also recommend that children under seven not spend their time on computers, video games, or handheld electronic devices. Further, I don’t believe that television should be part of a child’s bedroom. (Kids with a TV in their room spend almost ninety minutes more a day watching TV than those without a set in their room.)
²²
After the age of seven, or school age, a child’s primary focus moves beyond the home. As a result, their exposure to media, television, and computers will no doubt increase. As this happens, parents can begin to find a balanced role for screens in their children’s lives.