Television Defended

The studies of effects of TV viewing on children can measure only extremely coarse effects – effects that are unlikely to produce differences in your kids that are likely to matter to people who don’t care about them – teachers and scientists and members of government panels.
our children are already pretty well destined to be who they are on those scales.
But you are writing in this blog precisely because you don’t care about what people with such coarse yardsticks make of other people. You and your wife are are seeking experiences to make your children more curious, more responsive, more alert, more sensitive – better able to use more of the resources with which they are endowed by you two, by nature and by – whatever. TV watching will make them less so in every respect, and you know it. Every minute they spend watching TV as children will be a minute that is spent in a less enriching, more deadening way – every minute they spend this way will be a wasted minute of their lives.
That’s not to say that using TV as an occasional babysitter is unspeakable – merely that you shouldn’t be so darn well pleased about giving your baby X minutes of inferior experience as a matter of pride – when you have the option of giving it (X-Y) [where Y is when you are absolutely beat dead] minutes of something incalculably better, like reality, with shape and smell, that occupies space and time, and isn’t deliberately designed to cheat the mind of these qualia – especially at a time in their lives which is painfully short and hugely important.
Get the rest you need – but don’t deaden your kid’s mind and senses more than need be, and don’t take pride in doing so when you have to, as we all have to do.

Good TV deserves a good scotch.

“3. Depriving drinkers of alcohol tends to make them belligerent, making it a high-cost punishment to impose.”

It may not be as extreme, but kids deprived of television can be very belligerent. As a kidult myself I can relate.

Mellors:

I’m guessing you haven’t lived in the Washington DC area, because TV is better than real life there. What else can Bryan expect his kids to do in the two hours it takes to get anywhere at rush hour?

Bonus Question: How can you tell “The West Wing” was hopelessly unrealistic?
Answer: The characters didn’t spend half the show bitching about their commute, rent and taxes.

I think you just like taking controversial positions, and I am fine with that, but your arguments, while logical in a A+B=B+A sense, are nonsensical when thought about in a large context.

1. We agree that television is fun, but your argument should probably take into account the fact that their are alot of other fun things you can do that do not entail such sedentary positions.

2. This is such a weak argument because it can be made for ANY free activity. If your kids liked reading, that would be a cheap baby sitter as well. If they liked playing with Legos, that would be a cheap baby sitter as well.

3. Your last argument is also weak, and probably the weakest. Number one, I think most people would have a problem with knowingly introducing something “fun” to your kids with the sole intention of using it as a “stick”. Number two, if your kid likes ANYTHING, you can withhold it as a sort of punishment.

I think that in general, people who thoughtfully consider TV will decide that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Children become adults in spite of their parents, not because of them. No one knows what ‘works,’ and with the exception of extreme brutality no one knows what doesn’t work.

There is no reason to have a TV in the house for your children, however.

My father didn’t – I watched TV at the neighbors, every second I could (I was always amazed my neighbors weren’t as fascinated with TV as I was).

My own children watched TV at their mother’s house – my TV was strictly limited to watching Iowa football and basketball games, and went back into its cardboard box in the basement at the end of every game.

Evan, having been a kid at one point, I can attest to the fact that my mind was more stimulated from playing one season of baseball than by all of the many seasons of TV shows I’ve seen. In fact, I attribute the roots of my lifelong love of game theory to my childhood involvement in strategic contests.

Critical issue is violence. Search for ‘Children and TV Violence’ reveals that number of studies demonstrated less than desirable correlations.

Tracy,

1. TV and reading are both sedentary activities, I grant you that. I just would rather have my kids reading than watching tv.

2. You have to be confused to make that argument, and you are confusing me, but I am going to try to clean it up.

a. caplan’s argument is that TV is a good psuedo-babysitter.

b. this is true, however I just pointed out that their are many activities that are good psuedo-babysitters. I also gave a few examples.

c. my point was that #2 is not a good argument for television being great for the family.

d. just so we are clear, i am not opining on what other activities kaplan likes or dislikes.

Andrew. 1. “I just would rather have my kids reading than watching tv.”. Interesting, so you prefer reading to watching TV. Do you object to reading, though, compared to a more active activity, like playing sports?

2. “this is true, however I just pointed out that their are many activities that are good psuedo-babysitters. I also gave a few examples. … my point was that #2 is not a good argument for television being great for the family.

I don’t see how your point here draws on anything else you’ve said. There may well be many other free activities that are good babysitters, depending on your child. Their existance doesn’t suddenly make television any worse. If it did, then the existance of TV would imply that reading, or playing with lego is not a good pseudo-babysitting activity.

just so we are clear, i am not opining on what other activities kaplan likes or dislikes.

Thanks for clearing that up. My apologies for my misreading.

A neglected reason for kids to watch TV is social homework. It gives kids a shared frame of reference with their peers at school so they have things in common to talk about and play. I grew up without TV for much of my childhood and was thus lost whenever my peers wanted to play CHIPS and when they played G-Force I had to be Keeyop. Plus TV is so much better today, when I see the quality of children’s programming versus what was available growing up I want to punch Sid and Marty Kroft.

You guys are like so stuck in 1992. Kids still watch TV? I want to know what your policies are going to be for the Internet, where the world’s best library, video arcade, and red-light district are all within 30 seconds of each other.

I don’t think watching too much TV is harmful to IQ. However, for better or for worse, I would argue that kids who watch more TV become more uniform with other kids. The more TV a kid watches, the more they are likely to find in common with other TV raised kids, making friends easier. They are also more likely to share interests with other TV raised children. However this can possibly have its downsides depending on how you look at it.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and its only anecdotal, but it is worth noting. Look at the drawings of a kid raised without television, they will draw strange invented things created out of their varied experiences brought together by their imagination. Look at the drawings of a kid raised with a lot of TV and you are likely to find them drawing characters from their favorite TV shows.

The more stimulus a child receives from the mainstream (for example television, video games, popular books, or even public schooling), the more their interests, thoughts, and personalities will conform to the norm. For better or for worse.