Screen addiction can be a blight to the brain
Saturday, 12 September 2009
Ameer Hamza
Long hours before the television or the computer screen can have far-reaching consequences for child development. This conclusion has been corroborated by several surveys conducted in the United States, Germany, New Zealand and Malaysia over the past decades. The German and American findings, published in the journal of the 'Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine' in January 2001 reveal that children addicted to the screen are more prone to violent behaviour, are less creative and are generally apathetic with regard to familial or social interactions. A leading psychologist of Stanford University, appalled by the findings, suggested curtailing viewing time and video games and to inculcate discipline in them early on. That, he said, was the best way to protect children from screen addiction. Former President Bill Clinton himself was convinced. He was so concerned about the damage it was doing to America's children that prior to leaving the Oval Office he urged guardians that children be allowed no more than an hour or two of selected quality programmes under parental guidance.
Indeed, parents who are reasonably involved in the proper development of their children cannot ignore the profusion of studies carried out on the problem under question, and the recommendations that follow. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for one, called for a total TV ban for children under two, and this is not only because the usual fare of so-called children's programmes, specifically cartoons, are much too inane and violent in language and behaviour. Even the simple act of passive watching is said to retard a child's development, according to studies carried out by pediatricians and psychologists worldwide.
The Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP), Malaysia's premier watchdog for public welfare ---- our CAB (Consumer Association of Bangladesh ) should note ---- had seized upon such findings some years ago to launch an international campaign for sensitizing people to the damage done to children by too much television. A compelling guidebook, published by CAP about ten years ago, addresses parents. "Will you allow rapists, murderers, robbers, thieves, psychos or even strangers into your home?" Unregulated TV watching for children is very much like letting them hang out at any hour of the day or night with many of these questionable characters, says CAP. Apart from that, the proverbial idiot-box seems to make idiots of our children as well, "because TV is an IQ killer, a brain freezer, creativity strangler, thought inhibitor, time stealer, sleep disrupter, play time plunderer ---- and more," the booklet goes on, drawing upon several expert opinions, generously quoted to convince guardians for the well-being of their children.
Developing brains should be nurtured with human contact, not TV images, according AAP. Another author recommends avoiding TV as much as possible for the first twelve years of a child's life, to help develop effective thinking and problem solving skills. This is a tall order in an environment so overwhelmingly in favour of sky TV but discerning guardians would certainly do well to be themselves disciplined, select programmes carefully and make it a point to watch and discuss about them together. This scribe had an opportunity to exchange ideas with a Fellow from New Zealand concerning the good and bad of sky TV, during a Fellowship programme in Oxford many years ago. New Zealand started educating children how to analyze entertainment and advertisement and to 'deconstruct' them in order to arrive at a realistic appraisal. The purpose of these efforts was to help children learn to think and analyze and have their feet on the ground instead of being influenced by misleading images.
After all, satellite television keeps bombarding the senses with all kinds of stimuli and it is not only children who are under threat. Adults too can be subject to personal, social and cultural breakdowns, specially in conservative societies like ours, say some psychiatrists. They claim that conflicting values via multiple entertainment beamed into bedrooms of largely first or second-generation city-dwellers do the most harm as the senses of the vulnerable are assaulted by cultural fare they cannot cope with, leading to disorientation and increase in the incidence of mental disease, specially schizophrenia. This is indeed a very serious side effect. For Bangladesh's largely 'folk' ethos, the values propagated by sky television can actually create a kind of frustration and delinquency that families are not equipped to handle.
Is there any way then to educate our TV watchers, young and old alike, village folk and city dwellers, to pick and choose the 'good' rather than the 'bad' ? Or as children in New Zealand are being taught, to learn to analyse what they are watching, deconstruct the culture-specific situations and images to understand them in depth and thus limit damage to the mind ? That is hardly a workable proposition in so globalised a world !
Long hours before the television or the computer screen can have far-reaching consequences for child development. This conclusion has been corroborated by several surveys conducted in the United States, Germany, New Zealand and Malaysia over the past decades. The German and American findings, published in the journal of the 'Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine' in January 2001 reveal that children addicted to the screen are more prone to violent behaviour, are less creative and are generally apathetic with regard to familial or social interactions. A leading psychologist of Stanford University, appalled by the findings, suggested curtailing viewing time and video games and to inculcate discipline in them early on. That, he said, was the best way to protect children from screen addiction. Former President Bill Clinton himself was convinced. He was so concerned about the damage it was doing to America's children that prior to leaving the Oval Office he urged guardians that children be allowed no more than an hour or two of selected quality programmes under parental guidance.
Indeed, parents who are reasonably involved in the proper development of their children cannot ignore the profusion of studies carried out on the problem under question, and the recommendations that follow. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for one, called for a total TV ban for children under two, and this is not only because the usual fare of so-called children's programmes, specifically cartoons, are much too inane and violent in language and behaviour. Even the simple act of passive watching is said to retard a child's development, according to studies carried out by pediatricians and psychologists worldwide.
The Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP), Malaysia's premier watchdog for public welfare ---- our CAB (Consumer Association of Bangladesh ) should note ---- had seized upon such findings some years ago to launch an international campaign for sensitizing people to the damage done to children by too much television. A compelling guidebook, published by CAP about ten years ago, addresses parents. "Will you allow rapists, murderers, robbers, thieves, psychos or even strangers into your home?" Unregulated TV watching for children is very much like letting them hang out at any hour of the day or night with many of these questionable characters, says CAP. Apart from that, the proverbial idiot-box seems to make idiots of our children as well, "because TV is an IQ killer, a brain freezer, creativity strangler, thought inhibitor, time stealer, sleep disrupter, play time plunderer ---- and more," the booklet goes on, drawing upon several expert opinions, generously quoted to convince guardians for the well-being of their children.
Developing brains should be nurtured with human contact, not TV images, according AAP. Another author recommends avoiding TV as much as possible for the first twelve years of a child's life, to help develop effective thinking and problem solving skills. This is a tall order in an environment so overwhelmingly in favour of sky TV but discerning guardians would certainly do well to be themselves disciplined, select programmes carefully and make it a point to watch and discuss about them together. This scribe had an opportunity to exchange ideas with a Fellow from New Zealand concerning the good and bad of sky TV, during a Fellowship programme in Oxford many years ago. New Zealand started educating children how to analyze entertainment and advertisement and to 'deconstruct' them in order to arrive at a realistic appraisal. The purpose of these efforts was to help children learn to think and analyze and have their feet on the ground instead of being influenced by misleading images.
After all, satellite television keeps bombarding the senses with all kinds of stimuli and it is not only children who are under threat. Adults too can be subject to personal, social and cultural breakdowns, specially in conservative societies like ours, say some psychiatrists. They claim that conflicting values via multiple entertainment beamed into bedrooms of largely first or second-generation city-dwellers do the most harm as the senses of the vulnerable are assaulted by cultural fare they cannot cope with, leading to disorientation and increase in the incidence of mental disease, specially schizophrenia. This is indeed a very serious side effect. For Bangladesh's largely 'folk' ethos, the values propagated by sky television can actually create a kind of frustration and delinquency that families are not equipped to handle.
Is there any way then to educate our TV watchers, young and old alike, village folk and city dwellers, to pick and choose the 'good' rather than the 'bad' ? Or as children in New Zealand are being taught, to learn to analyse what they are watching, deconstruct the culture-specific situations and images to understand them in depth and thus limit damage to the mind ? That is hardly a workable proposition in so globalised a world !