There seems to be a lot of news around about digital devices paired with some age group leading to emotional or mental damage. TVs have been around 70 years. I'm not convinced devices are a relatively damaging factor in mental health development. Would I rather my child be using a phone or drinking lead-laced water or smoking? The evidence for chemical and biological consequences are more clear-cut and those took decades of measurable evidence. Studies, like these, seem more like trying to fit an assumed conclusion by plausibly random selection bias. Are these studies narrowing the field at all?
TV in the past didn't try to gaslight you into guilt or show all kinds of viral content and instant reactions. Except for news channels, most were slightly addictive at best. Even popular TV shows, you would have to wait for a week for the next episode and you couldn't binge. Screen time today is way different than even 20 years ago.
I think I can hear your point through the unnecessary snark. You're implying the field is narrowed to a kind of social engineering, rather than the screen itself.
Why does the study say screen time when the effects are, ostensibly, not about the screen? Again, a conclusion/agenda in search of evidence necessarily makes biased assumptions. THIS study (as with others) mischaracterizes itself. Seems like a questionable study from the outset. This is a poor approach to analysis.
This was a commentary on the sort of person who takes the phrase "screen time" seriously—a much broader cultural and social issue than the study itself could reasonably evaluate.
