Study Reports Videogames and TV Make Kids Unbalanced

[Dastardly]

I really think if you read through what I'm saying here, you're going to find we don't really disagree. You're just being a bit reactionary about this perceived targeting of video games.

This is illuminating the possibility that screen-as-coping-buddy is a problem at this crucial developmental stage. Rather than developing COPING mechanisms, these children are being herded toward AVOIDANCE mechanisms--which are completely different things. As a result, they are not developing the necessary coping skills, and the lack of these skills manifests as a problem. It isn't the entertainment CAUSING the problem, but it could be FACILITATING the problem.

Then resolve the original problem.

Yes, of course. And in the meantime, remove the enablers. Just like with an alcoholic, you need to treat the underlying depression... but you also want them to stop drinking in the meantime to allow the treatment to work. Treating a problem like this is uncomfortable as a process, and it is daunting. You want to be sure to remove those things that could be posing direct opposition (or, at best, distraction) from the process.

Or maybe tackling the problem that made them drink in the first place. Resolve that and I'm fairly sure they won't have a reason to drink anymore.

I'm not sure you understand the science and psychology of addiction. Addiction is a behavior that is largely separate from the subject of the addiction. At first, a psychological problem leads a person to try some usually-destructive behavior. This will become the subject of the addiction--smoking, video games, porn, whatever. And at first, they engage in the behavior to avoid the negative stimulus... and that provides them comfort for awhile.

Over time, that dynamic shifts. The mind makes the connection, cuts out the middle man, and now the subject begins to provide the comfort directly, while the conscious mind is completely ignoring the original negative stimulus. The person has conditioned himself to crave the subject, wholly separate from the original reason. That is the very essence of addiction.

Just fixing the underlying problem, while extremely important, isn't going to reverse that conditioning. The battle has to be fought on both fronts simultaneously. Fix the issue, so the issue doesn't pop up again, or simply change subjects (I was addicted to sex, now I'm addicted to crack), and at the same time reverse the conditioning surrounding the subject of the addiction.

But this study is basically finding scapegoats for bad parents. "Your child has problems? No worries, it's because video games and TV increase the risk of that". Your parents payed attention to you and listened to your problems instead of parking you infront of a TV and hope you grow yourself up. Delve into this deeper and you'll see the reason for the "unbalance" isn't because children spend to much time on TV or computers, it's because parents don't pay attention to them. Raise your child and stop using TV and computers as "nanny's".

I disagree. I think this study is doing the exact opposite--it is TELLING parents "Your child has these problems because YOU are letting them sit in front of the screen all day." The original articles even admonish parents to "pull the plug." It is working to encourage accountability in parents--telling them to take ownership over what their children use as entertainment.

What you are saying is true, and parents often use these nannies to keep the kids occupied in another room. This study is reinforcing the idea that this is a bad thing for the kids. The ones finding scapegoats are the psychologists that call everything a "genetic chemical imbalance." These folks are focusing on the things parents can (and should) control.

Maybe TV isn't the reason. Maybe parents for not paying enough attention to their kids. Maybe the fact that most parents today care more about their job than their child. Who knows. Either way, you need to delve deeper into the problem before an actual correlation is found.

Yes. Exactly. And this study is going after those parents. It's letting them know that 'parenting' is more than just 'giving your kids better toys and diversions than the other parents.' It's telling parents that they NEED to be more involved in keeping an eye on what their kids do in their free time. This study is on your side... it just happens to have offended you by appearing to target video games (even though it actually doesn't).

You need to go ahead and read the study, or at least the full article about it. The article itself doesn't cover the methodology they've used to account for the "other variables" that could factor in, and that's important information to have. But so far you've made several accusations about what this study did or didn't do, but you haven't presented any evidence that you've read the study. You've read part of an article about an article about the study, sure, but that's not going to cover the rigorous methods used in performing the study. Go ahead and find a link and read it, you may be surprised.

 

[Beeple]

Lol correlation.
Move along people really nothing to see here. A correlation can be drawn "conclusively" between absolutely any two variables as such it means -very little- if anything at all

 

[Jamieson 90]

I think a better method for the study would have been Overt Observation of the kids whilst also interviewing them and their parents over a long period of time. It would also be good to know what the relationships are like between the kids and their parents.

For example how much time do their parents interact with them? How many hours do their parents work? Where do the kids live? What is their academic work like at school? How old are they and what gender/sex? Is studying kids entering pubity a good idea? Would it not be better to study a bunch of 8-10 year olds instead and thats what made them down and depressed?

Did the reseacher consider the question of why the kids watch TV and play games? All I' am saying is that the study does not seem to consider other possiblities or factors for why the kids might be effected. Another good question is what did they watch? Was it something they normally watch and enjoy or a set program that they might find boring? Could it be that the kids who watched more were simply bored?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well the fact that it is done on children without it being done on the children before they had said screen time (ie say a year without comp and tv) to a year with screen time. Nor this elaborate on any damage caused at least according to the article it is very vague. Also it does not say whether any of these kids showed any psychological imbalances before hand. I am a bit wary the way that the results were so consistant and general accross all ages groups and sexes. This is does not seem right to me given how the male and female mind and brain develop so different.

 

[TLatshaw]

I'd like to see a study on the psychological effects of "screen time" on adults. If a few hours of TV or games per day is bad, 8 hours of staring at spreadsheets has to be lethal!

That avatar brings back so many memories...

In relation to the thread, what about those hours students spend behind a computer screen nowadays huh?

Fair enough! You can't just dismiss all this inactivity because it's not in our more "formative years."

 

[Bobzer77]

This should definitely give the tabloids something to write about when I suddenly explode and slaughter everyone I know.

Or maybe not, because this study is bullshit.

 

[antipunt]

Okay, maybe it is the case that video games just seem to draw people with psychological issues... Seems to me that's still a reason to limit their time. Bars don't create alcoholics, they just enable them--but we still keep alcoholics AWAY from bars for that reason. If these kids with these issues are turning to video games, it's likely because some aspect of the video game ties intimately into their issues.

I actually do agree somewhat with certain notions you've pointed out (specifically, that we should address underlying psychological issues that cause such predispositions). Limiting gaming-time isn't a bad thing either, especially with children, who require a sense of guidance regarding time management.

With that said, I was mostly concerned about the hint of a causal relationship. It seems that many will draw such faulty conclusions, especially given the -extremely- misleading choice of words in the title of the article (CNN's article had the same heading, verbatim)

 

[Dastardly]

Okay, maybe it is the case that video games just seem to draw people with psychological issues... Seems to me that's still a reason to limit their time. Bars don't create alcoholics, they just enable them--but we still keep alcoholics AWAY from bars for that reason. If these kids with these issues are turning to video games, it's likely because some aspect of the video game ties intimately into their issues.

I actually do agree somewhat with certain notions you've pointed out (specifically, that we should address underlying psychological issues that cause such predispositions). Limiting gaming-time isn't a bad thing either, especially with children, who require a sense of guidance regarding time management.

With that said, I was mostly concerned about the hint of a causal relationship. It seems that many will draw such faulty conclusions, especially given the -extremely- misleading choice of words in the title of the article (CNN's article had the same heading, verbatim)

Yeah, and that's just journalism at work. An attention-grabbing title is better than a technically-correct one. The study itself seems very careful to avoid causation-oriented language (as most studies are within this field, because that is such an elementary problem). To me, a study like this is just saying that between "kids" and "too much screen time," we seem to have gas and a match.

Which is which? Who knows? Which causes the fire, the gas or the match? You could argue it a million ways. But either way, keeping them being too close to each other is a good idea until you find out for certain, no?

 

[antipunt]

Which is which? Who knows? Which causes the fire, the gas or the match? You could argue it a million ways. But either way, keeping them being too close to each other is a good idea until you find out for certain, no?

I'm not entirely sure about the article(s) "avoiding causation-oriented language", but still, I see your overall point, and am inclined to agree.

 

[senorcromas]

So basically, what the study is saying:

"Go outside sometimes, goddamnit!"

 

[vanthebaron]

I call bulshit APA had an article out early this year saying the country. I trust an APA study more than a privet study. Video game's if they do anything make you less violent.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

This totaly explains why I wandered around town in a cape, going: "Criminals are superstitious lot... I'm, BATMAN" after playing Arkham Assylum.

 

[ADDLibrarian]

Meh, it's just a matter of not going overboard with one thing over another- balancing your TIME between TV, games, and other stuff.

 

[emeraldrafael]

This study sounds heavily weighted to get the outcome of "video games are bad" as a pretty much guarantee.

That being said, its a small wonder kids are psychologically disturbed by TV. not to knock it or anyhting, but have you ever watched the news? You have Republicans saying Democrats are retarded and vote them in is to destroy America. But then you have Democrats saying Republicans are old people who dont know how ot move forward and voting them in is to deny America its change to grow.

Plus all the murders, rapes, violence, and death you see on the news alone is traumatizing, let alone what you'll see on Comdey Central, HBO, um... USA, TNT, FOX, just to name a few where you have cop dramas where people are being violently ripped apart. And what do parents do but sit their kids in front of it from a young age to keep the quiet and then get worried cause for all the years the child grows and watches to learn behavior, it was watching violence.

Thats not even going into video games. Which again can be regulated by parents using a bit of common sense.

I dont know, I never take theses studies to heart cause in another two days/weeks/months/etc. we'll have a study saying the opposite and then another will come out saying this one was right and it will go in the giant circle we're stuck in that can be broke by parents just doing that freaking think called parenting...

Sorry bout the rant. These reports are just getting tiresome.

 

[Islandboy2]

So....it took a UK study with lots of money to tell me something my dad keeps ranting on for free.....Everything in moderation? If we're that bored can't we please do something productive?