Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My one and a half year old learned the alphabet by watching a cartoon several times. I think there is a healthy balance to be found somewhere between 24/7 and zero.


The point of the study isn't that kids can't learn from the TV-- of course they can-- but that they'll be _better_ at learning when it's you talking to them, or reading them a book, or playing, or something that's more interactive.

We have a four year old who we've tried to limit watching TV, because you can see a noticeable difference in demeanor and attitude when the TV is on versus when playing by themselves or with us. Of course there's going to be some TV time, but for a kid under 2, I would tend to agree with the study, with the addition that even something like an iPad can be much more of a learning tool.


why does there have to be some TV time?


I don't know if you have kids, but looking after them (some kids more than others) can be an utterly exhausting task that starts at dawn and doesn't end until 8:00pm. Television turns out to be something that can occupy some of the most hyperactive kids with minimal supervision.

If you asked any worker "why does there have to be a lunch break" they'd look at you like you were insane. I think the same applies here.


If you think looking after kids ends at 8pm, I'd question whether or not YOU have any either ;)


There doesn't have to be any-- the reality is that for a vast majority of parents, it's easy to slip and let your kid watch Yo Gabba Gabba for a half hour once every few days, just to catch the slightest break.


And by the time my toddler was 18 months she could count to 16, but we don't watch TV. Your kid may have done that anyway if provided the same stimulation by other means. It's not a reason in itself to watch TV.


And its not a reason to not. If the kids can pick up ABCs/Numbers while watching 1/2 hr of TV or 1/2 hr of you working hands on with them, doesn't change anything. So advocating no TV is a poor reason in this particular case. I think we all agree there is a healthy balance to be met.


"If the kids can pick up ABCs/Numbers while watching 1/2 hr of TV or 1/2 hr of you working hands on with them, doesn't change anything."

I really hope you didn't just say that there's no difference in learning between talking with your kid, or having them zone out in front of the tv.


I can see how my message would mean that, since I wanted my point to be brief.

I spend a lot of time reading to my kids and playing with them. I've seen how much they pick up that way. However, I haven't come across a book or way to hold my 2 yr old's attention to get them to learn ABCs and their sounds. She loves to read and see pictures and point at things but she isn't learning letters that way.

She watches about 15-20 mins of Leapfrog: Letter Factory and I was amazed how quickly she started recognizing her letters.

I'm not suggesting TV is a replacement to reading but rather than another medium of learning is a tool that can be leveraged.

Also my point was more towards the article headline (less so the content) in general where a blanket statement like 'watching TV = bad for infants'. Rather we should find a balance between reading, music, outside play and even TV.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: