Food for Thought

I’m reading an excellent book called Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, published in 1978. The author is not a scientist, and never claims to be. He doesn’t have answers, just observations and questions that most of us have never even thought to ponder.

 

There’s a section that talks about how television messes with your senses.

 

Think about it: On your screen, you’re watching a shot of two people walking on a distant hillside, yet you can clearly hear what they’re saying (when in reality you shouldn’t). But what you can’t hear are the ambient sounds that your brain would normally expect to hear if you were standing where the scene is being shot. Meanwhile, you’re “smelling some chicken roasting in the kitchen and you’re drinking a beer.”

 

The author points out that, “Television has attached two of your sensory modes to a distant spot, altered their natural arrangement to each other, but left other aspects of your sensory apparatus at home in present time… [This] takes on importance when we understand that the average person submits to this condition for four hours every day [it’s currently five for adults, 4.5 for kids], and while in this state is receiving important information about life. All of the information is narrowed to fit the sensory transmission limits of the medium and distorted by the sensory disconnections in the human.

 

“One can imagine the emergence of a new psychological syndrome: ‘sensory schizophrenia.’ The cure will involve exercises to resynchronize wildly confused senses with each other, with the mind, and with the world.”

 

The author’s 1978 description of “sensory schizophrenia” immediately made me think of Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD), defined in the book The Out-Of-Sync Child as “a common problem in which the central nervous system misinterprets messages from the senses.” So, I tried seeing if any studies had been done on the relationship between TV and SPD. None. Yay science.

 

What I DID find were several forum threads where parents discuss their SPD child’s relationship with TV. In every single thread, over and over, parents mentioned how, from the time their kids were babies, they fed them while the child watched TV. They also mention how at home they have the TV on ALL THE TIME because the adult likes (needs?) background noise.

 

The author’s suggested cure, “exercises to resynchronize wildly confused senses” made me think of Montessori’s beautiful Practical Life and Sensorial materials, which engage all of the senses and help re-center (or indeed, “normalize”) the child.

 

Food for thought… (Just don’t eat it in front of the TV.)

This post contains affiliate links.

Manic Brain

When I decided that screen time would no longer be a part of my 4-year-old’s life, I knew I would have to deal with screen detox.  The first day of Spring Break was also the first day of the “No More Screens” rule.  Almost immediately after waking up, Zach asked to watch videos.  I said no and reminded him of the new rule.  He got very angry and cried.  I acknowledged his feelings and stood my ground firmly and with love.  When he calmed down, we had breakfast and played trains while the baby napped.

When his play was winding down, he again asked for videos.  I said no.  He cried but seemed less frustrated.  We had lunch and read some books while the baby again napped.  Later that afternoon, he asked for videos again.  I said no.  He didn’t cry.  At that point, I knew he was ready to listen.

I said, “You know that inside your head you have something called your brain, and that’s what you use to think, learn, and solve problems.  When you watch videos, your brain is like this…” I made quick panting noises while shaking my head manically from side to side.  He smiled.

I continued, “When we turn off the videos, your brain is still going like this…” I again made the manic gestures, and he laughed.  “The problem is that the rest of the world doesn’t move as quickly as the videos, so your brain makes you feel angry because it wants things to move quickly again.  You have a wonderful brain; it’s a brain that can learn a lot and can solve problems.  My job is to help you keep your brain healthy and calm so that it can think and make good decisions.  And that’s why I decided that you can’t watch videos anymore.”  He thought about what I said but didn’t have any questions.

The rest of our Spring Break week passed without a single request for videos, and with lots of wonderful work and play.  I had my gentle, sweet, and mostly cooperative son back.

Today was the first day of school, and I knew he’d ask to watch videos because screen time had been a part of his after-school routine.  He came through the door after school and videos were the first thing on his mind.  I said no.  He asked why.  I repeated my “manic brain” explanation and offered an audiobook and a trip to the park as alternatives.  He happily accepted, and we had a fun afternoon.

During dinner, my husband asked Zach if he’d felt excited today about seeing his friends again after the break.  Zach said, “When I saw my friends this morning, my brain felt like when I watched videos.”  And that’s when I knew he understood.  Metacognition at four years of age.  Never underestimate a child.

The Medium is the Message

Screen time update: A couple of weeks ago, I posted on Facebook about screen time at our house. I wrote about how Zachary was frustrated when it came time to turn off the computer after his daily 15-minute screen time allotment, and how he had found a healthy outlet in crying.

I wish I could report that he had either developed the ability to turn off the screen without getting upset, or had at least continued to cry without escalating to anger. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), after a few days of harmless crying, he became aggressive at the end of screen time. After three days of dealing with his behavior, I explained my decision and my reasoning, and pulled the plug.

Today is day #1 of no screen time, and it happens to coincide with the first day of Spring break. He had a huge fit in the morning when he asked to watch a video and I reminded him of the decision. He got angry and tried to throw things, so Tom, my husband, stopped him and moved him to his room so he wouldn’t break anything (all he has there are clothes).

A few minutes later, Tom asked me to take over because he wasn’t feeling capable of handling the situation. I hugged Zachary and rocked him in my lap as he cried. It took him a while to get his anger out, but he did. He’s asked to watch a video three times, and all three times I’ve stood my ground firmly and with lots of love. His anger has diminished almost to zero, so now we’re ready to talk about what screen time can do to the brain and how the brain responds.

I’ve made a special space high up in a kitchen cabinet for ALL electronics, and that’s where they’ll stay any time the children are around. A friend and fellow Montessori guide told me that she and her husband treat their cell phones like old-fashioned land lines and keep them stationary when they are home. If the phone rings, they walk over, answer it, and then return it to its place. We’re going to do the same.

I thought limited screen time would work at our house. It doesn’t. Screen time is convenient, let’s not kid ourselves. Many shows are cute and seem harmless – even educational! But when it comes to children (and even adults), the medium is the message. And from now on, I’m thinking a lot more carefully about what message my children are receiving.

Book Review: Parenting, Inc.

Disclaimer: I wrote this book review several years ago on an old blog.  It’s still one of my favorite books and I thought some of my new readers might find the information useful.  Enjoy!

********************************

Parenting, Inc., written by Pamela Paul, goes beyond criticizing the baby product industry for its over-the-top marketing ploys, and analyzes how this exploding industry is impacting parents’ child-rearing abilities.  It is an eye-opening read for any couple thinking of having children, as well as for those parents who know they should trust their instincts but are getting swept away in the tide of marketing and societal pressures.

The book’s first chapter discusses the ridiculous amounts of gear that parents are guilted into purchasing even before the little one is born.  Forget diapers, baby wipes and onesies; parents are now made to feel inadequate if they don’t purchase every available item (including wipe warmers and baby-monitoring cameras) that could potentially minimize their child’s discomfort and maximize his happiness.  Sure, parents want their children to be happy, and there’s nothing wrong with happiness.  But, as Paul wonders: “Does it make sense to have a happy baby all the time?”  And do these items even ensure happiness?

In the book, Jack Shonkoff, chairman of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, reminds us that “babies need to live in a real world, a real environment, where things sometimes go well and sometimes don’t… They need some time to flounder by themselves and figure things out.”  The author then argues that by catering to the whims of children, parents are creating a generation of entitled and attention-seeking human beings, who look to others when problems need to be solved.

Paul reminds us that the worst part of all the paraphernalia peddled to parents is its impact on parental confidence.  The underlying message is that parenting is an overwhelming job that simply cannot be done well without the use of ridiculous amounts of expensive equipment.  And when the perfect family life doesn’t materialize, parents are left to feel that they and their flawed children – not the backed-by-experts products – are to blame.

Further on in the book, Paul contends (and I agree) that all those battery-operated toys children now play with are robbing them of their sense of creativity and empowerment.  She recounts stories of children who look for the batteries in every toy they pick up, or who pick up a stuffed animal and ask: “What does this do?”

Many parents who try to implement Montessori concepts at home wonder why their child doesn’t show much interest or respect for the materials they so lovingly purchase and create.  The answer might lie in this stunning fact: The average child in America gets SEVENTY (70!) new toys each year. According to the book, “the United States, with four percent of the world’s children, consumes 40 percent of the world’s toys.”  If a child is always getting new toys, she’ll come to appreciate them only for their novelty value and won’t bother returning to them for further exploration and imaginative play.

Paul focuses an entire chapter on “edutainment”, a catch phrase for the so-called educational DVDs (led by Baby Einstein) that have come to substitute the babysitter or the helpful relative.  Although the book was written before Disney admitted the products’ shortcomings and offered refunds, it presents a solid case against purchasing the useless – and even harmful – videos.  Why harmful?  Consider this: According to Paul, the A Day In the Farm DVD has six scene changes in a twenty-second segment.

Researchers interviewed for the book confirm that overstimulation “is damaging to the developing mind”.  They explain that “the brain’s orienting reflex is triggered when a baby hears a strange sight or sound: He can’t help but focus.”  When the scene changes rapidly, the new colors, sounds, and movements whiplash a baby’s brain back into the action.

This reminds me of friends with babies, who marveled at the videos’ ability to hold their baby’s interest.  Well, guess what?  They can’t help themselves!  Contrary to the manufacturers’ promises, not only are the babies not learning anything useful (since they are programmed by nature to learn through physical interactions, not passive absorption), but their future ability to concentrate is negatively impacted.

Parenting, Inc. also looks at the mushrooming enrichment class industry.  Parents spend dozens of hours – and hundreds of dollars – each month shuttling their children to classes that provide the same type of stimulation, which previous generations of children got from parents and caregivers, at home, for free.  While there’s nothing wrong with a swimming lesson, ballet class, or piano instruction, many children’s schedules are managed more tightly than a CEO’s, leaving little time for riding bikes, going to the park, and being kids.

What’s shocking is that this frenetic pace starts soon after the baby is born, with more and more classes being targeted towards infants.  One example the book gives is the popular music class for babies.  Proponents argue that exposure to music is essential for a child’s proper development and support their claims with the much-hyped Mozart effect theory.  Not only has the Mozart effect been discredited by well-founded studies, but what’s wrong with exposing your child to music at home while you fold laundry, saving yourself thousands of dollars a year?

Interestingly, the book points out that the only ones who seem to benefit are the mommies, who have a great excuse to get out of the house and meet other new parents.  There’s nothing wrong with meeting people in the same boat as you, but if I remember correctly, my mom used to meet her friends in a place designed to truly satisfy children’s needs – for free.  We called it “the park”.

Read this book if you want to restore a bit of sanity to your life and gain some perspective on the insane baby products industry!