Almost every child that uses a screen is just using it to consume. Yes in theory it is simplistic to say "screen time bad", not everything needs to be a super detailed, super nuanced discussion all the time.
I think when it comes to things about raising kids, a nuanced discussion is necessary, otherwise we end up with parents who blindly enforce the simplistic idea, thus actually being detrimental to their kids.
Unless you can present something to actually increase nuance, this is just diluting the conversation. Screen time for under 2 years Olds is bad and comments saying otherwise with anecdotal evidence shouldn't change anyone's mind.
I strongly suspect those comments come from two groups: Parents who have done this and are now trying to justify it for their conscience, and people who are on their phones all day themselves and can't bear being in "the bad group".
Assuming responsibility and having boundaries is hard, but admitting you have problems in those areas will set you free.
It's funny how you guys are going around accusing everyone who disagrees with the study of being too addicted, while not actually responding to any of the numerous shortcomings of the study people have pointed out here.
Maybe you're the ones too set in your opinion to consider anyone else's?
These are the studies we have. Disregarding evidence that we have because it doesn't follow some specific parameter that you care about means that you are valuing your experience more than studies.
By default, why are you assuming that screens for under 2-year-olds are good? What is your evidence here? We have a lot of evidence that it's bad, maybe it's not perfect evidence, but since we don't _any_ evidence to the contrary, it seems bad faith to believe otherwise or intellectual laziness.
Fair point, but it's because I'm so tired of these arguments.
They all sound like rationalisation of behaviour that the person making the argument exhibits. I don't think anyone making these arguments _doesn't_ exhibit the behaviour they're defending.
Think about how emotionally invested someone has to be to say "No this study on _one year old babies_ being negatively effected is nonsense, because it doesn't negatively effect 12 year olds" — of course I'm heavily paraphrasing for effect, but just read some of the comments above.
Actually my point is that blindly enforcing the simplistic idea would be beneficial in the vast majority of cases. Also I think the parents whose children are using computers productively know it, anyway.
