[Boomer]

The Plug-In Drug: Television, Children, and the Family by Marie Winn was published in 1977. The book was a social criticism of the influence of television on kids…………

Well, Marie Winn, you had no idea in 1977 how far those screens could go.

Screens can easily become the infinitely patient babysitter. I have heard parents pathetically brag about how their 3-year-olds know their way around an iPad screen or phone.

Surly pre-teens and teenagers can be shut up or shut down by just letting them have all the screen time they want.

I have wondered what studies will show about language development in little kids under so much influence from screens in place of time spent interacting with parents, human-to-human style — and what about social skills development?

I don’t know why so many parents are ignoring the glaring fact that to let a child grow up plugged-in is to invite the whole world, and all that entails, into the child’s life.

But, I guess if the kid is plugged in that gives the parents more plug-in time, too……….

I am happy to know parents who take the hardest job in the world seriously and have enough sense to limit screen time and to supervise what they do allow — as kids get older and the presence of screens becomes unavoidable and necessary in some situations. And, of course, education can be enhanced with legitimate online info. I am not totally opposed to screens — but it is all too obvious now that those screens own us as a culture. I wish there were more parents who were not so willing to abdicate their responsibility to a screen — while they just look the other way. (shudder)

Boomerosaurus

[Two Bills]

Wife and I were out for lunch today, and opposite us a family of five, mum, dad, and three girls sat down.
All five were flicking about on phone.
We wondered if they were texting each other to see what they were going to order!
Don't think a dozen words were exchanged between them.
So not just the kids are zombified.
Funny old world!

[Boomer]

And while I am on my little tirade about screens and kids, I must add the fact that diabetes and weight problems with kids have never been like this before, and also depression and anxiety in childhood. What a mess we are in.

For a lot of kids, their mom is the internet and their daddy is the television.

Boomer

[Michael G.]

Many parents use TV as babysitters, and have you seen what's on TV lately??

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Boomer

The Plug-In Drug: Television, Children, and the Family by Marie Winn was published in 1977. The book was a social criticism of the influence of television on kids…………

Well, Marie Winn, you had no idea in 1977 how far those screens could go.

...

Boomerosaurus

Credit/blame where it's due: Swanson sold the first TV dinner in 1953. A generation of Screen Zombies was born.

As I've said in other threads - the dumbing down of America started with the current generation's grandparents.

[asianthree]

When our grands came to visit, early December, all were still attending online classes, with one studying for Mcat.
Bonus we could enjoy Disney, with their trusty earbuds. During breaks they enjoyed rides, that WiFi was lost. Any papers that needed to be submitted had a 4 day window.

Times have changed, but at our table phone’s are not allowed, at home or out to dinner, with the exception of the pic taken of their newly arrived entree’s.

It’s a habit good or bad, for us. Last night my pic of almond boneless chicken, made all the kids and grads, wish they were north too. Tomorrow pics of Duck Donuts, and lunch at Leo’s Coney will be sent as well.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Boomer

The Plug-In Drug: Television, Children, and the Family by Marie Winn was published in 1977. The book was a social criticism of the influence of television on kids…………

Well, Marie Winn, you had no idea in 1977 how far those screens could go.

Screens can easily become the infinitely patient babysitter. I have heard parents pathetically brag about how their 3-year-olds know their way around an iPad screen or phone.

Surly pre-teens and teenagers can be shut up or shut down by just letting them have all the screen time they want.

I have wondered what studies will show about language development in little kids under so much influence from screens in place of time spent interacting with parents, human-to-human style — and what about social skills development?

I don’t know why so many parents are ignoring the glaring fact that to let a child grow up plugged-in is to invite the whole world, and all that entails, into the child’s life.

But, I guess if the kid is plugged in that gives the parents more plug-in time, too……….

I am happy to know parents who take the hardest job in the world seriously and have enough sense to limit screen time and to supervise what they do allow — as kids get older and the presence of screens becomes unavoidable and necessary in some situations. And, of course, education can be enhanced with legitimate online info. I am not totally opposed to screens — but it is all too obvious now that those screens own us as a culture. I wish there were more parents who were not so willing to abdicate their responsibility to a screen — while they just look the other way. (shudder)

Boomerosaurus

Perhaps insidious is to strong a word, and maybe not ,but being plugged in you are just passively receiving information with little effort on the part who is on the receiving end , a one way conversation that diminishes critical thinking of what is being presented. In a conversation one has at least a give and take interaction, it is much easer to influence someone with sound bites. Children in schools and as adults we get little information that is not presented as audio/visual. Reading on the other hand is requires one to process the information, it is something you do, you can reread parts, relate one sentence or paragraph to another, reading skills teach writing skills , organization of thoughts and logic. It is harder to sell BS when it written out. That I think is the real danger of being "plugged in"

[Djean1981]

Some kids don't receive a lot of eye contact and personal attention. I wonder how that is working out..

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Djean1981

Some kids don't receive a lot of eye contact and personal attention. I wonder how that is working out..

Why not? Because their parents have chosen to raise their kids this way. Why is that? Because THEIR parents chose to raise THEIR kids that way.

When this is all you know, it is all you teach.

[MartinSE]

///

EDITED: I apologize to everyone I offended by actually discussing the topic in depth. I will from now on restrict my posts to snarky comments, cheap back handed compliments, and complaining about the developers.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

You want to know why our society is so screwed up? In my not so humble opinion, a major part of the problem is shown in that Apple story. Our obsession with profit over humans. Not liberals, not Conservatives, not Government, not Drugs, not the "War on Christians" - those are ALL bad and contributing to the problems, but the root cause is predatory capitalism - profits no matter what the cost top humans, is the cause of almost all of our problems.

Or, as the OLD adage says, "Money is the root of all evil" or from the Bible, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

I think we, the US, are fully and completely pierced through with many sorrows.

Oh yeah, I hear folks are just overjoyed about how fortunate they are to live where capitalism has been extinguished, such as in Venezuela and Cuba!

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Oh yeah, I hear folks are just overjoyed about how fortunate they are to live where capitalism has been extinguished, such as in Venezuela and Cuba!

I disagree, and your one-liner does nothing to change my mind.

You think $1000 for a shot that cost $10 to make and will save your sons life - but only if you can afford it? That is your best of the world capitalism? That is predatory capitalism. I am a firm capitalist. We just don't have it here anymore.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I disagree, and your one-liner does nothing to change my mind.

You think $1000 for a shot that cost $10 to make and will save your sons life - but only if you can afford it? That is your best of the world capitalism? That is predatory capitalism. I am a firm capitalist. We just don't have it here anymore.

Without capitalism the life saving shot would not exist as no one would have been motivated to invent it. It would not be available to anyone at any cost no matter their dire need. The low cost shot through lengthly and costly experimentation and development came into existence because of competition for financial rewards within a capitalistic society. In our exceedingly benevolent society such shots usually are readily available literally free to anyone wanting it, even illegal aliens, welfare recipients of every stripe and convicted criminals in prisons. Moreover, the shots likely will be provided free of cost to poor countries, all due to the success of our capitalistic society.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

Perhaps insidious is too strong a word, and maybe not ,but being plugged in you are just passively receiving information with little effort on the part who is on the receiving end , a one way conversation that diminishes critical thinking of what is being presented. In a conversation one has at least a give and take interaction, it is much easer to influence someone with sound bites. Children in schools and as adults we get little information that is not presented as audio/visual. Reading on the other hand is requires one to process the information, it is something you do, you can reread parts, relate one sentence or paragraph to another, reading skills teach writing skills , organization of thoughts and logic. It is harder to sell BS when it written out. That I think is the real danger of being "plugged in"

I think “insidious” is the perfect word, not too strong at all.

I read the The Plug-In Drug when it was first published in the 1970s. I remember one of the points the author made was that television does most of the brainwork, unlike reading, which requires making pictures in the mind, more brain activity.

The other stuff you said is accurate, too.

Boomer

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Without capitalism the life saving shot would not exist as no one would have been motivated to invent it. It would not be available to anyone at any cost no matter their dire need. The low cost shot through lengthly and costly experimentation and development came into existence because of competition for financial rewards within a capitalistic society. In our exceedingly benevolent society such shots usually are readily available literally free to anyone wanting it, even illegal aliens, welfare recipients of every stripe and convicted criminals in prisons. Moreover, the shots likely will be provided free of cost to poor countries, all due to the success of our capitalistic society.

Uh, nope actually totally wrong, almost. That would have been true 50 years ago. Today it is no longer true. It is just a form of American Exceptionalism. Today drugs, treatments and therapies are developed around the world.

And the the shot in question. It had already paid off its R&D costs a long time before it was sold to a predatory capitalist. Both the company Pfizer and the person that bought, Maylan, it were chargd with gouging and ended up paying over $600 million dollar in damages.

So much for the poor little company just trying to recoup all their costs..