# why is reading more important than watching tv?



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

if a child spent 8 hours reading would you discourage her? during summer vacations.

then why do we throw a fit if they watch tv for 8 hours?

what are we expecting out of our kids from reading?

what is the difference between reading and 'watching' - be it tv or movies.

why is one better than the other.

today we were debating screen time with my almost 8 year old and she asked me these questions.

i am curious to hear what you mama's think - esp. if they already know how to read.

i am not going to purposely say what i think. more curious to see what you guys feel.

i am talking about kids maybe 5 and older. or kids whatever their age who have mastered reading. not talking about toddlers.


----------



## bec (Dec 13, 2002)

I'll bite. First of all, I wouldn't want my kid to read for 8 hours in a day. I think kids need to be doing a variety of activities, including running, playing, making up their own pretend games.

Second, there is a large difference, cognitively between reading and watching tv. Reading is actively engaging a person's mind. They have to concentrate on the words to be able to understand the story. They have to visualize the characters, the setting, the action, the voices. TV/movies do all the thinking for you. It is all handed to you. The vision of someone _else's_ creativity. In a book, there is some amount of participation by the reader to interpret the story.

Finally, I think there is a physical difference between reading a book and seeing the moving images on a lit tv. I think that the book is, likely, easier on the eyes.


----------



## montlake (Mar 13, 2008)

I think it all depends on the material. Would I rather my kid read really bad writing like Twilight or watch something on NatGeo? Reading doesn't always automatically win.


----------



## Youngfrankenstein (Jun 3, 2009)

Obviously they are different but I will agree that we're always taught reading is better.

My son would read non-stop if allowed. My neighbor had to punish her son by taking his book away and his teacher was appalled. She felt it was always wrong to not let a child read. The mother was just doing what she felt was most productive.

I will say that when we watch Jeopardy as a family, it is not passive at all. We have fun talking and trying to answer questions, etc.

For me, I find that watching comedies is a nice endorphin release for me so while it may not be critical thinking, it can be a stress reliever.

I am also a person who must read before bed to relax and get sleepy. I could never watch TV to fall asleep because it would be too much visual.

And now that you mention it, I mostly listen to TV. I have MST3K episodes playing on my computer while I do housework and listen to it like a radio.

I haven't answered one of your questions, have I?







My brain must be soft from too much TV watching.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Yeah - I don't know that I'd be that enthused if my kid was reading for 8 hours a day. Mainly b/c that wouldn't leave much time for playing outside, doing artwork, building things, etc. - even during the summer. I would worry about social skills or if my child had something they were trying to escape from, yk? My DD, age 9, loves to read - and will do so often when she has a free moment or two. She also reads before bed and random times throughout the day - but the only time I could see her reading for 8 whole hours in a 24 hour period was if it were a book she couldn't put down and she was super into. This wouldn't be an everyday thing, realistically.

Anyhow, I don't limit screen time with any of my kids - they can play on the computer, watch movies, or TV shows (though, we don't have cable, or even PBS, for that matter). They watch a lot via netflix instant play. But 8 hours a day of TV, does seem excessive to me, and more worrysome than reading would because it doesn't take as much mental energy to stare at a show than it does to actively read and comprehend written words. Obviously, I don't think zoning out and enjoying one's favorite shows are a bad thing (I'm about to watch Teen Mom online in a min







), but there is definitely a big difference in imagination and how the brain is stimulated when comparing TV vs. reading a book.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

For good, scientific info, read "The Plug-In Drug". It talks about how TV engages very little of the brain, whereas reading lights it up. Also TV mostly affects the pleasure areas of the brain and trigger an "addictive" effect such that over the years, a person will begin to "crave" TV. Obviously, that's not good. I'm sure reading can become "addictive" and if it does, then that's not good either.

I can't remember the details, but there were also studies done that showed that reading increased *something* in the brain (cognition maybe?) and TV decreased it.

Anyway, the negative effects have been shown with TV whereas there have been none shown for reading. The updated version of the book includes video games and computer.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Reading engages the brain in was TV doesn't. They are two completely different mental actions (TV watching being mostly mental *inaction*







).

So, reading is better. Though I'm not 100% anti-TV, and think that it can have it's place even in education.

However 8 hours a day of reading? Too sedentary. And I was the kid who *would* read 8 hours a day if allowed. I think an occasional reading binge like that would be fine--for instance on a day when it was just too hot to move outside, or in the winter when the weather is too bad to do anything or go anywhere.

But yes, I would probably discourage 8 hours of sitting down doing *anything* for my kids. But if they are going to spend a lot of time indoors, I'd rather they read (she says, as her kids are watching Pink Panther shorts







)


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

I don't want kiddo to be doing any ONE thing for 8 full hours a day... seems excessive!

With that said, assuming everything is kept to moderation, I don't think tv is bad. I want less of it in our home but I don't want to be 100% tv or screen free. I know for ME, I am not a passive watcher. I react to story lines in shows/movies similarly to how I do in books. I'm the type to talk to the characters or go on rants about how something in the show reminds me of something in real life and why it pisses me off. If it is a show with continuity such as House or something, I'll definitely think about past episodes to work on what will happen in the current and if it is a show that just has patterns but not continual story line such as kids shows like arthur, I'll recall past episodes and similarities to figure out what to expect. I talk about this with kiddo too so she can hardly be a passive watcher.

Honestly, the only time I'm not really into the show and thinking about what is going on and recalling past things or things I'm reminded of or yelling at the screen is when I have it on like the radio. Not watching, just background noise.

Maybe I'm weird and a total over thinker, but I have a hard time watching a show and not taking much in or not looking deeper at the metaphors and foreshadowing and such. Although sometimes I can read a book without being able to remember a single thing on the page.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

The brain responds differently to tv than to reading.

A good question is, "Why do people so often spend 8 hours a day watching tv, when so few are interested in spending 8 hours a day reading." Same answer. The two engage our brains differently.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Watching TV = Mindlessly staring at moving pictures on a screen. Rarely does it involve more than that.

Reading = Using your mind to create the story being read in your head.

The difference is, one is more "active" than the other. When you read, you do more than just stare, you are actually using skills and your mind to do something.


----------



## captain optimism (Jan 2, 2003)

My mom used to make me stop reading and go outside. I don't know if I read 8 hours a day back then. I'm sure I do now. I'm online a lot and when I'm not I read books.

My son isn't an early reader like I was. He uses his screen time to get little bits of information from PBS shows online. He's very smart about it, but I don't think he gets as much kind of background information from his pursuit of learning whatever they have to teach as I did from reading.

It's a very frontal way of teaching, you know? It's worked well for him when he watches shows about math, and stuff on the science of building things, but when he tries to learn more natural-world topics like nutrition or plants and animals, the frontal presentation is very limited. When you read about something like that for yourself, you can go deeper. Of course the stories on Youtube are not nearly as rich as something you can read in a book, and reading to yourself will always beat anything you can see in a movie or on a screen.

So I guess I would say I've re-evaluated how educational screen time can be. My son has shown that a determined kid can learn a lot from television programs and games--it's just not as effective, deep or efficient as reading for certain kinds of information. I also see that he gets very testy when he has to stop watching the screen. My friend told me her daughter, who is also 7, has trouble doing anything else after she's been watching TV for a little while. She's tired and grumpy but too wired to fall asleep.

Books don't do that to you, usually.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

I think reading for 8 hours a day is too much too. But, tv is more mindless than reading.

I am not anti tv. I think some shows are great! I love to watch tv myself, but not for 8 hours.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
Watching TV = Mindlessly staring at moving pictures on a screen. Rarely does it involve more than that.

Reading = Using your mind to create the story being read in your head.

The difference is, one is more "active" than the other. When you read, you do more than just stare, you are actually using skills and your mind to do something.

ok so i had this argument with dd. and i presented this reasoning.

and she differs with me. btw i am only quoting this post coz it captured everything succintly.

dd argues that content is content, whether you watch tv or read a book or google.

recently she has changed. she has become a different child. one of the shows she watches on hulu inspired her to change herself. it actually made her do something.

she is my 'thinker' child and many shows like ninja turtles have brought on 'deep issues'.

so she questions shouldnt the 'judgement call' depend on the person watching and shouldnt content matter?

and i think she has a valid point.

and yeah i dont think too much of anything is good. but we have had a few days of summer with 8 hours of tv and 8 hours of books.

and oh btw 8 hours is because of hulu and she can watch all her episodes and watch the story line for 8 hours. sigh! big anime fan. well maybe not 8 hours but many hours. definitely more than 2.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
and oh btw 8 hours is because of hulu and she can watch all her episodes and watch the story line for 8 hours. sigh! big anime fan. well maybe not 8 hours but many hours. definitely more than 2.


Do you have to pay for HULU? And, does it only have shows that are on tv? (Cuz I want to see LOST without buying season 6)

Total thread drift, I know... but, I can't get HULU to work for me.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Do you have to pay for HULU? And, does it only have shows that are on tv? (Cuz I want to see LOST without buying season 6)

Total thread drift, I know... but, I can't get HULU to work for me.

OH NO!!! you poor thing. i dont know how we could LIVE without hulu!!!

its a free site. you DONT pay for it,

HOWEVER... it does have a new pay ($10 a month) service for getting it on different kinds of media.

and hey i just checked real quick. they DONT have season 6 on yet. only excerpts.

carrying on the OT there are a couple of GREAT movies dd and i enjoyed. we have watched them multiple times with friends too. its the anthropologist in us that loved it.

if you can get hulu to work here are the movies
- the great match
- visit to a chief's son


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Wow, she is a thinker. And no i do not think reading is in every way superior to TV and I think sedentary us sedentary regardless of what you are doing and 8 hours of anything on a regular basis is unhealthy. Comprehending what you read is easier than comprehending what you watch and I think it is an important thing to keep practicing.


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
dd argues that content is content, whether you watch tv or read a book or google.
...
and i think she has a valid point.

I agree with her. When studies look at the brain's function during television watching, they are capturing only a very small snapshot that shows what parts of a brain respond to the light stimuli. In reality, quality television and movies can inspire deep critical thinking, which studies don't tend to measure.

That said, I think overall that reading requires more intellectual prowess, which is why I encourage it over television in general. An occasional day spent vegging in front of the TV is fine, imo.

I spend 8+ hours a day reading whenever possible, which isn't much now because of my other commitments. As a child, I definitely preferred reading to any other activity and read hundreds of books over summer break. I can't imagine telling one of my children that wasn't acceptable, particularly since both of them get plenty of physical activity, just as I did.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
ok so i had this argument with dd. and i presented this reasoning.

and she differs with me. btw i am only quoting this post coz it captured everything succintly.

dd argues that content is content, whether you watch tv or read a book or google.

recently she has changed. she has become a different child. one of the shows she watches on hulu inspired her to change herself. it actually made her do something.

she is my 'thinker' child and many shows like ninja turtles have brought on 'deep issues'.

so she questions shouldnt the 'judgement call' depend on the person watching and shouldnt content matter?

and i think she has a valid point.

I wouldsay that the difference is between content and processing. If you watch a TV show then little is left to the imagination - the set, the characters, the costumes, the weather, the accents, the tone of voice, the emphasis - it's all there for you. Whereas, if you read a book, even a descriptive book, you still have to create all those things for yourself. I would argue that even if the words were exactly the same on the TV show or in the book that the book would still be better. Superficially, it may seem like you're getting the same information but the book requires more of your brain.

Physically, one is more active when reading a book also. Apparently we are less active watching TV than we are when sleeping.

Google is an intersting one. I think it is somewhere in the middle but probably a bit closer to TV. I read a study once which showed that Google etc is having a negative effect on our brain functioning because it allows us to exercise our memories less. Remember pre-interweb if you couldn't remember the name of that guy/book/movie/insert random fact here you had to wrack your brain and you'd finally remember it 3 hours later? Well, now we don't have to do that and it's stunting us.

I view TV [no pun intended] in thesame way as I view chocolate biscuits - it's an indulgence. Sometimes I'm sensible, sometimes I overindulge but, either way, I don't kid myself that it's good for me or that I *need* it for any reason.

If my child wanted to watch 8 hours of TV in one day as a special summer treat then I may well let her (as a one off) but I wouldn't consider it a good use of her time just as I don't consider my TV watching a good use of my time.


----------



## quelindo (May 11, 2005)

I wrote this blog entry when I was considering whether or not to make DS TV-free (and he is):

I started doing research on the effects of television on children. What I found made me realize my gut instinct to keep Henry far, far away was right on. The Plug-In Drug: Television, Computers, and Family Life by Marie Winn is particularly eye-opening. She asserts that it's not just what a child watches that matters -- it's that they watch at all:

"Parents may overemphasize the importance of content because they assume that their children's television experience is the same as their own. But there's an essential difference between the two: adults have a vast backlog of real-life experiences that colors what they see; children do not. As adults watch television, their own present and past experiences, dreams, and fantasies come into play, transforming the material they see into something reflecting their own particular inner needs. Young children's life experiences are limited. They have barely emerged from the preverbal fog of infancy. *It is disquieting to consider that hour after hour of television watching constitutes a primary activity for them.* Their subsequent real-life activities will stir memories of television experiences, not, as for adult watchers, the other way around. To a certain extent children's early television experiences will serve to dehumanize, to mechanize, to make less real the realities and relationships they encounter in life. For them, real events will always carry subtle echoes of the television world." (Bold mine.)

She also discusses how television watching displaces human interaction for children, and why this is so noteworthy:

"According to...neuroscientists, among the most important of the environmental factors that might affect neurological development are the language and eye contact an infant is exposed to. Indeed, some researchers say that *the number of words an infant hears each day is the single most important predictor of later intelligence, school success and social competence.* But there's one catch. As a New York Times science writer concluded, 'The words have to come from an attentive, engaged human being. As far as anyone has been able to determine, radio and television do not work.'" (Bold mine.)

Winn says that television viewing also keeps children from playing, which serves a vital role in their social, emotional, and intellectual development. In the "more complex forms of imaginative play they...find ways to work out difficulties and adjust the realities of life to their inner requirements.... In play they expose, and perhaps exorcise, fears that they cannot articulate in any other way."

She also explores the difference between reading and television viewing, which often displaces reading: "At the same time that children learn to read written words they begin to acquire the rudiments of writing. Thus they come to understand that a word is something they can write themselves. That they wield such power over the very words they are struggling to decipher makes the reading experience a satisfying one right from the start." However, "[a] young child watching television enters a realm of materials completely beyond his or her understanding.... They take on a far more powerless and ignorant role in front of the television set than in front of a book."

Winn addresses television's damaging effects on the growing-up process, too: "There's an evolutionary purpose to [the] behavior progression from parent-centered, passive, receptive orientation to an environment-centered, active, learning style of life: the individual's survival in society is necessarily a function of active, adaptive behavior. It is precisely at this point in a child's development, somewhere between the ages of two and thee, that parents are most likely to begin turning on the television set for their young children. While watching television, young children are once again as safe, secure, and receptive as they were in their mother's arms. They need offer nothing of themselves while watching.... *Just as they're beginning to emerge from their infant helplessness, the television set temporarily but inexorably returns them to a state of attachment and dependence.*" (Bold mine.)

Television also negatively affects something called inferential reasoning, Winn says: "One particular skill...that [has shown] a significant decline [among schoolchildren] -- an advanced reading skill called 'inferential reasoning' -- has caused particular concern.... Inferential reasoning is the ability, beyond the mere mechanics of reading, to draw conclusions, form judgments, and create new ideas out of what one reads. The ability to make inferences is essential to meaningful reading in literature, history, science, and other subjects. Without this complex ability, reading becomes a superficial exercise." She gives the example of a project carried out by a Harvard University research organization called Project Zero that connects the decline in inferential reasoning with children's television watching.

The final point I found so compelling in Winn's book is the connection between television and a growing lack of community-mindedness. She says that "tarting in the late 1960s or early 1970s, Americans seemed to grow considerably less community-minded than they had been in years past" and that in "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Harvard social historian Robert Putnam points out that the first television generation was precisely the one that marked the beginning of the decline." Putnam's conclusion was that *"'[a] major commitment to television viewing -- such has most of us have come to have -- is incompatible with a major commitment to community life.'"* (Bold mine.)

So there you have it. TV makes real-life less real, displaces human interaction, hampers development only produced by play, replaces the power of reading and writing with the passivity of viewing, promotes dependence when independence is crucial, limits the ability to reason inferentially, and narrows the scope of one's involvement in the world.


----------



## Maiasaura (Aug 12, 2002)

I didn't read all the replies. But I wanted to put in my 2c









Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
what is the difference between reading and 'watching' - be it tv or movies.
why is one better than the other.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
dd argues that content is content, whether you watch tv or read a book or google.

My take is that I agree with her re: content. I think it's not really any different, and sometimes maybe TV is better, for content.

As for concentration, though, books far surpass TV. Reading is an activity that takes active engagement, and also, it's a skill that takes practice to get proficient. Unfortunately it's a skill that has gone way downhill in the US, and is sorely lacking anymore.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

My understand is that the research shows really different brain patterns for reading and TV. TV can get pretty close to sleeping (you know that zoned out feeling where you're barely flipping channels?) In reading you are creating your own images, not just processing other people's images.

I also think most television (sorry Mad Men!) operates at about a grade 4 vocabulary level whereas books just go deeper.

However, I'm not anti-TV wholesale. There are wonderful shows and movies and things to love out there. I just think reading is a wider path in a lot of ways.

I'd be more comfortable with lots of reading than lots of TV. I used to read compulsively in the summer and loved it. However, I'd want to throw in some other activities as well. My mother used to make me bike ride to the library and set a limit of 5 books at a time, which basically ensured I was riding there every day or every other day.







That plus swim lessons and a couple weeks of camp was a decent mix.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
if a child spent 8 hours reading would you discourage her? during summer vacations.

then why do we throw a fit if they watch tv for 8 hours?

what are we expecting out of our kids from reading?

what is the difference between reading and 'watching' - be it tv or movies.

why is one better than the other.

I'm very pro-reading, and would much, much rather my kids spent their time curled up with a book than watching a bunch of tv. (We're tv-free, in terms of cable/network programming, but do watch DVDs - more than I truly think we should, to be honest.)

However, I would _probably_ gently discourage even reading if they were doing it for 8 hours a day. Why? Because that's what I did. I'm a complete bookworm. And, when I look back over my 42 years of life, I think I'd have been better off doing other things more often than I did.

That said, ds1 did spend several hours a day reading through the whole Harry Potter series last summer, and I had no problem with that. He does a lot of other stuff, and continues to acquire new interests all the time. The intense reading marathon was unusual for him.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *New Mama* 
So there you have it. TV makes real-life less real, displaces human interaction, hampers development only produced by play, replaces the power of reading and writing with the passivity of viewing, promotes dependence when independence is crucial, limits the ability to reason inferentially, and narrows the scope of one's involvement in the world.

Great post overall, and definitely a book I would like to read.







I have to say that reading also makes real-life less real (for the same real life experience reason -- kids don't automatically have real life reference points for what they read, either), excessive reading (or other formal academic activities) also hamper development only produced by play, and not all viewing done by all children at all ages is "passive" (trust me, I know this first hand, and there has been research done on it, too). I can't speak (at the moment) to limiting the ability to reason inferentially or narrowing the scope of one's involvement in the world, except to say that this hasn't been our experience, nor that of anyone we know well. I think (and if I can find the information to back me up, I will) that it depends so much on the values of the family, the way they view tv (there is "active" viewing and "passive" viewing, and it has less to do with content than it does with approach), how many real life experiences their children are engaged in, and how they interact with each other and the world around them. Some people "use" tv differently than other people, and some people lead more intellectually impoverished lives than other people. Content is only a small part of the picture.

Also, in the US we place an extraordinarily high premium on reading independent of its relationship to tv. It's almost embarrassing how obsessed we as a nation are about it. I LOVE reading, and always have, but it's insane the amount of money and energy and PR we pour into it.

I don't think all reading == good, and all tv/media viewing == damaging.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Reading is a more involved process that allows you to be active. I don't think that content really matters for tv. I watched a ton of educational stuff as a child and hardly remember any of it because I was mostly just watching. I still remember the books about animals I read as a child though. I think that this is a point to negotiate on and maybe look at your limits, but I wouldn't personally allow my dd to watch that much tv in one day unless she was incredibly sick. If you are comfortable with her watching that much then it is a different story, but if not I don't think you should negotiate beyond the point you are comfortable with. I like the consensual living stuff, but I have found that when I agree to something I am not really comfortable with I parent from a place of tension and negativity that I can't get past until we reassess the situation and come to something we are both more comfortable with.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
ok so i had this argument with dd. and i presented this reasoning.

and she differs with me. btw i am only quoting this post coz it captured everything succintly.

dd argues that content is content, whether you watch tv or read a book or google.

recently she has changed. she has become a different child. one of the shows she watches on hulu inspired her to change herself. it actually made her do something.

she is my 'thinker' child and many shows like ninja turtles have brought on 'deep issues'.

so she questions shouldnt the 'judgement call' depend on the person watching and shouldnt content matter?

and i think she has a valid point.

and yeah i dont think too much of anything is good. but we have had a few days of summer with 8 hours of tv and 8 hours of books.

and oh btw 8 hours is because of hulu and she can watch all her episodes and watch the story line for 8 hours. sigh! big anime fan. well maybe not 8 hours but many hours. definitely more than 2.

There is always going to be variations between people, and between shows. When I watch Law and Order SVU or House, I'm trying to figure out the conclusion before it happens. When I watch Family Guy or The Simpsons, I'm not really trying to figure out anything.

What we do with what we watch obviously has an effect too. There are classes you can take on The Simpsons that involve discussing the portrayal of American society and what it tells the rest of the world. At the same time there are cheap romance novels or books like (dare I say it?) the Twilight series that really have no actual value.

The problem with TV is most people tend to not notice when they are just mindlessly staring at the screen as opposed to actually thinking about or even talking about what they are seeing. Some people can watch tons of educational TV and not learn a thing like the PP mentioned, at the same time I know someone who has won trivial pursuit games because she watches Family Guy every week. She actually _learned_ from _Family Guy_. But she interacts with the program on a deeper level than most people do.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Thank you NewMama for doing what I was too lazy to do... give actual quotes. These are very compelling, as the whole book is (I have the old version that does not include computers).

I think that while your dd is trying hard to make her arguments, meemee, (and my dd, who is also 8 does the same thing for some *she* really wants), for her, it's a means to an end... to watch as much TV as she possibly can. That right there should be a warning. Is she trying to convince you of doing ANY other activity for 8 hours a day? No single activity, except sleeping, for 8 hours/day everyday is healthy.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

if a child spent 8 hours reading would you discourage her? during summer vacations. *No I wouldnt discourage her but then dd isnt up to her grade level reading and I would love for her to love reading and get there.*

then why do we throw a fit if they watch tv for 8 hours? *I dont, our tv's are on constantly there are 3 in the house and the kids have a choice of 2 of them.*

what are we expecting out of our kids from reading? *to learn to use their imagination and be able to go places that they normally couldnt that way*

what is the difference between reading and 'watching' - be it tv or movies. *to me the only difference is reading lets you be the character more so than tv does.*

why is one better than the other. *I would see reading as better because of the imagination involved but not so much more than tv that it makes a huge difference.*

I have never seen tv as evil I have always seen it as a way to learn more about the world than I could ever learn IRL.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
For good, scientific info, read "The Plug-In Drug". It talks about how TV engages very little of the brain, whereas reading lights it up. Also TV mostly affects the pleasure areas of the brain and trigger an "addictive" effect such that over the years, a person will begin to "crave" TV. Obviously, that's not good. I'm sure reading can become "addictive" and if it does, then that's not good either.

I can't remember the details, but there were also studies done that showed that reading increased *something* in the brain (cognition maybe?) and TV decreased it.

Anyway, the negative effects have been shown with TV whereas there have been none shown for reading. The updated version of the book includes video games and computer.

THIS!
after i read the book years ago i really took the time to watch my kid after they watched tv and i can see how it affects them 100%. they do become addicted... heck i do to!

anywho.. i don't think the occational day sitting in front of the tv for 8 hours will kill anyone.
i have a book lover in my house and she will read for hours and hours a day. i don't have a problem with that. even when she reads some "trash" books. we talk about them, the writing styles and content. the twilight books actually gave us alot to talk about, it was good stuff.
i, personally, encourage reading. but i know it isn't for everyone or every family.
plus even with 8 hours of reading in one day there are still 8 more hours to do other things. but it could be my homeschool mind thinking here. lol

h


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Reading improves your concentration, vocabulary, and critical thinking. Basically, it makes you smarter. TV doesn't provide that. It isn't exercise for your brain.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Reading improves your concentration, vocabulary, and critical thinking. Basically, it makes you smarter. TV doesn't provide that. It isn't exercise for your brain.

Passive viewing doesn't. Active viewing, particularly the kind of viewing that leads to deep, meaningful exchanges between friends and family members, or sparks an interest that leads to deeper investigation, does lead to exercise for your brain (particularly if you are a visual learner). It doesn't matter whether this is the type of viewing that most people do -- it matters that it isn't the medium itself that is the problem as much as it is the way it is used. Excessive tv watching is a problem -- but if a person is living a normal life, with friends and relatives and hobbies and work, tv doesn't have to be an evil thing.


----------



## Holiztic (Oct 10, 2005)

I agree with most PPs that 8 hours of any activity, especially a non-creative (meaning "creating" like writing, making music, cooking, woodworking...) sedentary one is not a good idea. But here's what I have to say about TV vs. reading:

I have been in and out of TV-free over the last 4 years (3.5 year old DS has always been totally screen free). When I am watching TV daily I am much more sedentary (in general, even when not watching), more depressed, less productive, etc. I have to be honest, when I am TV-free for weeks or months at a time and and reading 2+ hours a day I am also more sedentary and less productive (but not at all depressed).

It's really when I'm TV-free, computer light (30 minutes a day or less) and reading moderate (1-2 hours a day, after getting a lot of housework/exercise done) that I am my most active, productive, and balanced.


----------



## Youngfrankenstein (Jun 3, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *montlake* 
I think it all depends on the material. Would I rather my kid read really bad writing like Twilight or watch something on NatGeo? Reading doesn't always automatically win.


Totally agree.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Because while people CAN do other things while watching TV they're more likely to do other things (use the restroom, walk to the kitchen, take a bus (can't with tv), ride in the car to the grocery with the family (can't with tv)) while reading a book.

Books can be read outside.

Books can be put on hold far more readily than TV can be paused, even with DVRs and the like.

With a book, you're getting a look into the mind of one other person without as much feedback from other opinions. While TV is written by some excellent writers (Doris Egan, writer for House, wrote the Gates of Ivory, one of my favorite trilogies) they are 1. often working in a group, and 2. frequently less in control of content than a book author is.

Otoh, book authors get less feedback so there's a lot of tripe that makes it past the slushpiles and onto the shelves. Nothing like as bad as the junk that makes it past focus groups looking to find the next thing that'll keep people in their seats during commercial breaks though.

New TVs aren't as bad for the eyes as the old flickering ones, still not a great idea to spend a ton of time looking at a glowing screen. Books can also cause eyestrain, but somehow people are more likely to remember to turn on a decent light when reading.

And then there's what else is going on. Is the child also playing video games or doing work on the computer? So it's 10-12 hours of screen time if they watch 8 hours of TV?


----------



## Girlprof (Jun 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I'm very pro-reading, and would much, much rather my kids spent their time curled up with a book than watching a bunch of tv. (We're tv-free, in terms of cable/network programming, but do watch DVDs - more than I truly think we should, to be honest.)

However, I would _probably_ gently discourage even reading if they were doing it for 8 hours a day. Why? Because that's what I did. I'm a complete bookworm. And, when I look back over my 42 years of life, I think I'd have been better off doing other things more often than I did.

That said, ds1 did spend several hours a day reading through the whole Harry Potter series last summer, and I had no problem with that. He does a lot of other stuff, and continues to acquire new interests all the time. The intense reading marathon was unusual for him.

Too funny. I am a big reader but even I was thinking - 8 hours in a row is a long time.....except of course for Harry Potter.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *New Mama* 
"Parents may overemphasize the importance of content because they assume that their children's television experience is the same as their own. But there's an essential difference between the two: adults have a vast backlog of real-life experiences that colors what they see; children do not. As adults watch television, their own present and past experiences, dreams, and fantasies come into play, transforming the material they see into something reflecting their own particular inner needs. Young children's life experiences are limited.

I'll have to read that book to find out if it addresses the fact that DD (and other kids I know) show more interest in TV that mostly shows things they're already familiar with. And then, new things they've seen on TV are more readily understood when encountered in real life.

E.g. DD's ridden on buses in real life. So the wheels on the bus video on youtube is full of awesome for her. Then it talks about wipers. So the next time we were in the car and it rained and I ran the back wiper, she had the vocabulary to comment on it. (in the car, with other traffic, and rain, and RF, she wouldn't have heard me tell her about it nearly as clearly as sitting together looking at a cartoon bus, but "yes! wipers go swish swish swish!" was easy for her to get after she had the context from the video.)

Thanks to TV, DD has pretended to ice skate by standing on blocks and scooting them around. Come winter, she'll have the foundation for experience ice skating in real life.

She knows what a tennis racket is for because of Wii sports.

She has no idea about the earthquake in Haiti even though she saw some coverage because she's got no real life frame of reference.

Of course, I also make a point of creating real experiences to reflect the screen demos and I find her screen things that relate to her real life interests, it's probably different for kids who watch "what's on".


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I also wanted to add that there are times when a tv-type medium is _exactly_ what I want. A few months ago, I picked up a cheap children's pottery wheel on clearance at Michael's. DD1 had a great time shaping a little pot, and was interested by the way the wheel worked. So, I found an _amazing_ little demonstration of pottery wheel work on youtube. DD1 and ds2 were both spellbound (it was about 10-12 minutes or so). There is no way that the magic that man was creating on the wheel could have been captured in a book. It required a medium that captured motion.


----------



## ssh (Aug 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5* 
Reading improves your concentration, vocabulary, and critical thinking. Basically, it makes you smarter. TV doesn't provide that. It isn't exercise for your brain.


This is true. Also the more you read, the faster you can read and the more vivid it gets. I've always loved books and started spending my own money on them when I was about 7. I was reading adult level books by age 9, Edgar Allen Poe and Robert Heinlein to name a couple. I had a 10 book a week habit by my early 20s, but could read most books in 2 or 3 hours. Reading increases your vocabulary, improves your writing abilities and introduces you to more of the major ideas of human culture than tv can, even if you do just watch history and science shows. One major advantage of being an avid reader was the ability to quickly and more easily read materials used in my college classes. I disagree with folks who say reading less than quality books is not as good as quality tv shows, because the more you read the more efficiently you read. So a kid who compulsively reads comics is still developing reading skills that translate into being able to read more serious materials more easily.

So saying reading and watching tv are equivalent activities is like saying swimming laps and floating on an inter-tube are equivalent because both are spending time in a pool.

I do watch tv. There are 3 to 6 shows I watch every week depending on what part of the year it is. I also don't limit screen time for my almost 5 year old. She's too busy playing make believe games to watch much lately anyway. The whole family watches nature programs.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ssh* 
So a kid who compulsively reads comics is still developing reading skills that translate into being able to read more serious materials more easily.

Very true. I started on comics, and used the vocabulary I'd built mostly from those to beat my 7th grade teacher in an in-class spelling bee. I was also reading Robert Heinlein (and a raft of other SF authors) at an early age. I can't remember exactly when, but I know I'd read Stranger in a Strange Land before I was 12, and I think it was before I was 11. I had my nose buried in a book all the time, and was, like you, reading about 10 books a week in my early 20s. I only cut that back for two reasons. The first is that I don't like libraries much, and buying books, even second-hand, was getting expensive. The second is that ds1 came along, and my reading time got cut a bit. Comics were a big part of all that reading. So were the Hardy Boys and Trixie Belden and Tom Swift and...all the other things I read that I can't remember (except Amelia Bedelia, who still holds a special place in my heart, and I'm so glad dd1 likes her, too).


----------



## Delicateflower (Feb 1, 2009)

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet.

The language used on TV is casual. The language used in books is more formal (teaching grammar), often has sophisticated rhyme patterns (children's books), and uses longer words and a bigger vocabulary.


----------



## accountclosed2 (May 28, 2007)

I was a bookworm as a child. Reading was my favourite thing in the whole world. And reading for 8 hours at a stretch sounds familiar, that was how I read, at times.

I would read through a whole book, or later a series of books, just eat and read (during holidays and weekends). But of course, not every day, just until the book/series of books was finished. Then I would spend some time digesting the book, when I was younger this meant creating enormous worlds with dolls and characters all over my bedroom, creating scenes out of the book/s. Later, in my teens, I digested it in my mind instead. I would digest it for days, weeks or months. and in between re-read books or read easy books in shorter stretches.

What I do know is that if I was interrupted, pulled from reading, made to stop, especially in a place not chosen by me that sort off got me out of sorts for the rest of the day. (I still was a part of the family, went to meals, car trips, chores, family visits etc. Just while reading, or with book near, ready to start again).

If DD becomes a reader like me, I'd help her learn to control it early. I would let her know before something happens "In 10 minutes we're... (...) you need to find a good place to stop for a while." or "You can't read at grandma's house, but you can read for 20 minutes until we leave, and in the car if you want". I wouldn't make her put her book away just to do other play (although I probably would encourage her to join me in yoga or for a walk at some time during the day. Play was useless for me when I was in a reading mood, as I was just miserable if made to join my siblings in play.

Reading to me is a very creative thing.

In a way I could see a similar thing in watching All of the Lord of the rings-films in one go, or watching a whole season of NCIS. Because I would spend a lot of time after digesting, thinking, re-arranging, creating different scenarios, making up alternative dialogue.

Watching 8 hours of what's on tv; episodes of various tv-series etc, on the other hand doesn't compare. Nor does reading a pile of Hello magazine for 8 hours. Although at times it can be very relaxing!


----------



## OkiMom (Nov 21, 2007)

Personally i wouldn't want my child doing any one activity for 8 hours straight. I LOVE to read, I could read non-stop but I make sure I don't read over an hour straight (ok, right about now i don't get more than 15 minutes straight). I find reading (and watching TV for that matter) to be very easy time wasters, by the time you realize how much time you have spent doing that activity you have wasted half your day. I don't really consider reading a waste but I have a LOT of other activities I should be/need to be doing and so does everyone.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theatermom* 
Passive viewing doesn't. Active viewing, particularly the kind of viewing that leads to deep, meaningful exchanges between friends and family members, or sparks an interest that leads to deeper investigation, does lead to exercise for your brain (particularly if you are a visual learner). It doesn't matter whether this is the type of viewing that most people do -- it matters that it isn't the medium itself that is the problem as much as it is the way it is used. Excessive tv watching is a problem -- but if a person is living a normal life, with friends and relatives and hobbies and work, tv doesn't have to be an evil thing.

this is exactly my dd's point of view. not that she is asking me to allow her to watch tv 8 hours a day everyday. or even read for that matter. but she likes to once in a while wallow in tvdom or books (esp. when she gets into her thinking phase). that is her special privilege in summer. of course this is a moot point now that summer vacation is over.

i dont know if its her kind of personality or not, but she has never really watched tv passively or bought into what they are saying without questioning it. while watching ninja turtles she asked me 'why do all the bad guys have to die. if you kill the bad guys then how different are you from the bad guys? just because they did xxx does that make him a bad guy?'

when she saw a foundation commercial she asked me why we use foundation. it only fixes the problem for a little bit, it doesnt take away all the spots, so what's the point in wearing it.

she is the child who does prefer reading to tv. now if i can find her some good her kinda manga she would happily do that instead of watch anime.

she first watched the movie bridge to terabitha before she was ready to read the book (i dont think she has read the book yet - or maybe she has). that movie completely changed her views on bullies and how to treat bullies.

so basically what she is saying is to not write off media as time wasted. but as a learning experience too.

she prefers reading non fiction rather than watching shows. with shows she finds they just present facts without an explanation.

AislinCarys - yup yup. she watched this whole series of anime show and then spent days thinking about it and trying to figure out what she wanted to 'do' about it. she didnt want to tell me the process until she was sure of it. so she spent a few days thinking before she decided to apply it and then she told me.

she also points out SHE gets more value from certain shows than i assign value to them. and i notice she does do that.

so in a way both books and tv are a catalyst for her. and i have seen the impact on her.

Storm Bride even though dd enjoyed Amelia Badelia, its Skippyjohn Jones that has a special place in dd's heart. AND heidi too.


----------



## ssh (Aug 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OkiMom* 
Personally i wouldn't want my child doing any one activity for 8 hours straight. I LOVE to read, I could read non-stop but I make sure I don't read over an hour straight (ok, right about now i don't get more than 15 minutes straight). I find reading (and watching TV for that matter) to be very easy time wasters, by the time you realize how much time you have spent doing that activity you have wasted half your day. I don't really consider reading a waste but I have a LOT of other activities I should be/need to be doing and so does everyone.

I don't feel reading to be a time waster. Ideas are where all of the human races innovations come from and the written word is how we share ideas. Now some written material is more mindless amusement than others, but probably about half or more of it isn't. So if I need intellectual stimulation and want to spend a couple of hours immersed in Brian Greene's Elegant Universe or I need the pure stress relief of a clever novel, I don't feel guilty. I usually do TV during planned quiet alone time ....... so it's also an unwinding activity. Trying to read for just 15 minutes would probably drive me buggy if the book was any good. My DD likes to have some one outside when she plays so sitting under a tree reading while she's running around works really well.


----------



## SpiderMum (Sep 13, 2008)

As an unschooler of a radical persuasion, I see no reason to draw a line between reading and television watching. Sometimes I will bury myself in books and read for hours...other days I just want to watch a movie or two...sometime I want to do nothing but knit, other days I want to be outside as much as possible. I assume that my child may be similar. She's just a toddler, but sometimes it's "outside outside outside" all day....and then others it's "a show a show a show". I'm okay with that. If your child is in school, then I think they should definitely get to decide how they will spend their summer vacation! How would any of us feel if we went on vacation and had someone telling us not to spend it doing such-and-such? We'd probably be pretty annoyed, and rightfully so! Actually, I've had that happen. When we'd go to the river when I was younger people would constantly bug me to go on the boat or go skiing. I just wanted to lay on a blanket and relax under a nice tree (either reading, coloring, listening to music, or doing some needlework). I often wanted to stab people as a result because it was MY vacation and I should have been left to do as I pleased.

As a child my mother would fuss at me for reading "too much". It annoyed the crap out of me! I would get a book that I really enjoyed and camp out on the couch reading for a couple days. Nevermind the fact that I spent many other days that week outside at all times playing...or that I spent the next day crafting...she still fussed at me to "do something constructive".







If I wasn't reading a lot, she'd fuss at me to read more. Seriously...I remember thinking "make up your mind, woman!".


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *New Mama* 
I wrote this blog entry when I was considering whether or not to make DS TV-free (and he is):

I started doing research on the effects of television on children. What I found made me realize my gut instinct to keep Henry far, far away was right on. The Plug-In Drug: Television, Computers, and Family Life by Marie Winn is particularly eye-opening. She asserts that it's not just what a child watches that matters -- it's that they watch at all:

"Parents may overemphasize the importance of content because they assume that their children's television experience is the same as their own. But there's an essential difference between the two: adults have a vast backlog of real-life experiences that colors what they see; children do not. As adults watch television, their own present and past experiences, dreams, and fantasies come into play, transforming the material they see into something reflecting their own particular inner needs. Young children's life experiences are limited. They have barely emerged from the preverbal fog of infancy. *It is disquieting to consider that hour after hour of television watching constitutes a primary activity for them.* Their subsequent real-life activities will stir memories of television experiences, not, as for adult watchers, the other way around. To a certain extent children's early television experiences will serve to dehumanize, to mechanize, to make less real the realities and relationships they encounter in life. For them, real events will always carry subtle echoes of the television world." (Bold mine.)

She also discusses how television watching displaces human interaction for children, and why this is so noteworthy:

"According to...neuroscientists, among the most important of the environmental factors that might affect neurological development are the language and eye contact an infant is exposed to. Indeed, some researchers say that *the number of words an infant hears each day is the single most important predictor of later intelligence, school success and social competence.* But there's one catch. As a New York Times science writer concluded, 'The words have to come from an attentive, engaged human being. As far as anyone has been able to determine, radio and television do not work.'" (Bold mine.)

Winn says that television viewing also keeps children from playing, which serves a vital role in their social, emotional, and intellectual development. In the "more complex forms of imaginative play they...find ways to work out difficulties and adjust the realities of life to their inner requirements.... In play they expose, and perhaps exorcise, fears that they cannot articulate in any other way."

She also explores the difference between reading and television viewing, which often displaces reading: "At the same time that children learn to read written words they begin to acquire the rudiments of writing. Thus they come to understand that a word is something they can write themselves. That they wield such power over the very words they are struggling to decipher makes the reading experience a satisfying one right from the start." However, "[a] young child watching television enters a realm of materials completely beyond his or her understanding.... They take on a far more powerless and ignorant role in front of the television set than in front of a book."

Winn addresses television's damaging effects on the growing-up process, too: "There's an evolutionary purpose to [the] behavior progression from parent-centered, passive, receptive orientation to an environment-centered, active, learning style of life: the individual's survival in society is necessarily a function of active, adaptive behavior. It is precisely at this point in a child's development, somewhere between the ages of two and thee, that parents are most likely to begin turning on the television set for their young children. While watching television, young children are once again as safe, secure, and receptive as they were in their mother's arms. They need offer nothing of themselves while watching.... *Just as they're beginning to emerge from their infant helplessness, the television set temporarily but inexorably returns them to a state of attachment and dependence.*" (Bold mine.)

Television also negatively affects something called inferential reasoning, Winn says: "One particular skill...that [has shown] a significant decline [among schoolchildren] -- an advanced reading skill called 'inferential reasoning' -- has caused particular concern.... Inferential reasoning is the ability, beyond the mere mechanics of reading, to draw conclusions, form judgments, and create new ideas out of what one reads. The ability to make inferences is essential to meaningful reading in literature, history, science, and other subjects. Without this complex ability, reading becomes a superficial exercise." She gives the example of a project carried out by a Harvard University research organization called Project Zero that connects the decline in inferential reasoning with children's television watching.

The final point I found so compelling in Winn's book is the connection between television and a growing lack of community-mindedness. She says that "tarting in the late 1960s or early 1970s, Americans seemed to grow considerably less community-minded than they had been in years past" and that in "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Harvard social historian Robert Putnam points out that the first television generation was precisely the one that marked the beginning of the decline." Putnam's conclusion was that *"'[a] major commitment to television viewing -- such has most of us have come to have -- is incompatible with a major commitment to community life.'"* (Bold mine.)

So there you have it. TV makes real-life less real, displaces human interaction, hampers development only produced by play, replaces the power of reading and writing with the passivity of viewing, promotes dependence when independence is crucial, limits the ability to reason inferentially, and narrows the scope of one's involvement in the world.




thank you mama for taking the time to give me a sneak peak into this book.

and i will say i completely disagree with this point of view. because TV is NOT a big part of our lives. it plays a small part but a significant part none the less.

i think she is spot on if a kid just sits and vegetates in front of the tv.

what is particularly funny is TV is ACTUALLY developing dd's inferential reasoning. i will go as far as to say that schools are also not only not developing inf. reasoning but in fact discouraging it too.

dd has watched tv from 2. on and off. never ever on a regular basis. mostly movies though. we really havent had tv programming in a long time. so i havent really given tv watching much importance.

i hadnt formed my opinion yet. i couldnt see it as evil. i can totally relate to the author watching my room mates teenage boys either play video games or watch tv and nothing else. that's what they do with their time with ocassionally going out once in a while. so with them i can totally see the author makes sense.

personally i really do think we make tv to be more of an evil than it really is. just like anything else doing too much of one thing, even if its drinking water is bad for you.


----------



## Britishmum (Dec 25, 2001)

I could read for 8 hours, and so could my kids. No problem. Unless we have to get something done or go somewhere, I never, ever discourage them from reading.

My parents constantly told me to get my nose out of a book and 'do something'. I detested those 'somethings' that they wished me to do, and bitterly resented the time I was made to do something that they felt was more valuable than reading. In fact, I still resent the fact that I was made to feel that there was something wrong with me - because in their actions they showed that they thought that something was wrong with wanting to read for entire days. I'm sure it was well meant, but the message was very negative and hurtful.

I grew up to major in Lit, and eventually became a writer. I still read a lot - not as much as I'd like, but I am totally content when I have a book in my hand. I commented to my kids (homeschooled) today that they write beautifully for kids who have never been made to do a formal writing exercise in their lives. All three of them write pieces that would be considered waaaaay ahead of their grade level - their writing is well composed, thoughtful, engaging, with good grammar and spelling. They have developed this ability simply because they have listened to and read a wealth of good literature and non-fiction. I believe that if you read, you can cut out all those hours spent in schools on formal language instruction, which is yet another reason why time spent reading is time well spent.









I would never try to limit my child's time spent with their books. I know what joy books have brought me, and would not deny that to my children.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

Most TV does not engage the brain the way most reading does, but some reading material is "trash" and some TV/movies/etc. are very stimulating, especially when the content matches well with the watcher's interests, so I do agree that there is a judgement call to make for sure. I do think reading > TV as a general rule is still sound, but like any rule there are exceptions







But then, I also think the same about video games, some of them really are great in moderation.

And while I think reading is wonderful, reading for too much each day is still too sedentary, especially for a child. Nothing wrong with kicking a kid out of the house if they are being too sedentary.


----------



## Phoenix~Mama (Dec 24, 2007)

Didn't read all responses yet...

But I pretty much was that kid! lol I have always loved reading, and I spent many summers reading the whole day. But I did usually read outside, and it wasn't always everyday, and I'd do some other things too.

But I think reading is definitely better than all day TV, as a PP did mention about reading is a lot more cognitive and your brain has to actually think, whereas most TV programming for kids just does not do that, and it's easy to zone while watching TV.

I know while reading, I often even event other parts of the story in a daydreaming creative way.

As long as it's not all day every day the whole summer, I don't really see an issue with it.


----------



## Norasmomma (Feb 26, 2008)

I wouldn't want my child reading _or_ watching TV for 8 hours a day. Get off your butt and get outside would be my answer, unless they are sick or something. Go for a walk, take the kids swimming, something.

My friend's daughter reads all day long, she also has a severe weight problem, so her reading isn't exactly keeping her healthy.


----------



## mtiger (Sep 10, 2006)

Haven't read the whole thread... But to me what makes reading preferable to watching tv or playing video games? Vocabulary. Assuming, of course, that they are reading something at least level-appropriate.


----------



## Hesperia (Sep 3, 2007)

I didn't read the whole thread, nor do I believe I have any answer right for anyone but me.

But why try to control either action? I cannot understand the mentality of forcing a child to stop reading, if they are enjoying the activity and it is meaningful and worthwhile to them. I personally might not want to read for 8 hours straight, but this by no means relates to what a child might want.

What if you just let them....do either for that matter. What they are getting from it might be so far beyond our understanding right now. And even if they aren't getting anything from it in a tangible way, they are dealing with how sitting for 8 hours makes them feel and learning self control in the process. Also, many children aren't given the luxury to spend 8 hours doing whatever they please, some are detoxing from school and NEED to do this, others just enjoy reading.

My point is (since I'm rambling) is why so much control (specially for the reading part!). Why worry about the time they spent at all. Tomorrow they might watch zero TV or read nothing. Look at the weekly, the monthly etc.


----------



## Hesperia (Sep 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SpiderMum* 
As an unschooler of a radical persuasion, I see no reason to draw a line between reading and television watching. Sometimes I will bury myself in books and read for hours...other days I just want to watch a movie or two...sometime I want to do nothing but knit, other days I want to be outside as much as possible. I assume that my child may be similar. She's just a toddler, but sometimes it's "outside outside outside" all day....and then others it's "a show a show a show". I'm okay with that. If your child is in school, then I think they should definitely get to decide how they will spend their summer vacation! How would any of us feel if we went on vacation and had someone telling us not to spend it doing such-and-such? We'd probably be pretty annoyed, and rightfully so! Actually, I've had that happen. When we'd go to the river when I was younger people would constantly bug me to go on the boat or go skiing. I just wanted to lay on a blanket and relax under a nice tree (either reading, coloring, listening to music, or doing some needlework). I often wanted to stab people as a result because it was MY vacation and I should have been left to do as I pleased.

As a child my mother would fuss at me for reading "too much". It annoyed the crap out of me! I would get a book that I really enjoyed and camp out on the couch reading for a couple days. Nevermind the fact that I spent many other days that week outside at all times playing...or that I spent the next day crafting...she still fussed at me to "do something constructive".







If I wasn't reading a lot, she'd fuss at me to read more. Seriously...I remember thinking "make up your mind, woman!".

Nodding head dramatically.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katelove* 
I wouldsay that the difference is between content and processing. If you watch a TV show then little is left to the imagination - the set, the characters, the costumes, the weather, the accents, the tone of voice, the emphasis - it's all there for you. Whereas, if you read a book, even a descriptive book, you still have to create all those things for yourself. I would argue that even if the words were exactly the same on the TV show or in the book that the book would still be better. Superficially, it may seem like you're getting the same information but the book requires more of your brain.


I think this is why the book is always better than the movie. I LIKE being able to imagine the way the characters look, what the setting looks like, and feeling connected to the story in a way that TV just doesn't allow. I hate watching TV though - and I don't have one b/c I can't afford cable


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

I haven't read all replies either, but I do know that reading is the number one way to increase vocabulary and grammatical skills. If someone reads voraciously, you don't have to worry as much about their learning a wide vocabulary or teaching them grammar. That's why we do SSR in my high school English classes still









I would take days and read all day, when I was young. I do know that I felt great after those days, and books are a huge part of my life and who I am. And I would sometimes, as a teen, take days and watch TV all day, and I felt like garbage after that... but it was addicting and made me feel phsyically icky so that all I could do was sit and watch until I could get a fresh start the next day.

I think it's fine for a kid to take a day and do whatever, if it's not all the time. But if my kid were always sitting down to read for hours at a time, I'd be happy, whereas if they did the same with TV, I'd be finding ways to encourage different activities FAST. For all the reasons I skimmed through and saw in this thread, and all the reading I've done on the topic: TV's quick-cuts, the addictive nature, the lack of positive outcomes. Sometimes TV is just fun and it's great (heck, I've sat through marathons of TV series or Pride and Prejudice







). But there are so many studies about the harm of TV, with both the content (like, the more TV a kid watches, the higher rates of sexist thoughts, the lack of diveristy on TV, the beauty standards on TV, etc) and the nature of the medium (the quick cuts, passivity, how it hypnotizes you, etc) that I wouldn't say endless consumption all the time is harmless, whereas there are so many studies about the positive nature of reading, I wouldn't be bothered.


----------



## Bia (Oct 21, 2004)

Has anyone read about prolonged reading or other close work leading to myopia because it causes the focusing muscle to be overworked in an unnatural way? I've seen conflicting reports but it makes sense to me. (Says a voracious reader who got her first pair of glasses at age 11.)


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 

what is the difference between reading and 'watching' - be it tv or movies.


The difference is what's going on (or not) cognitively during TV or books. In short, there's a lot more brain "activity" going on with books.


----------



## SubliminalDarkness (Sep 9, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bia* 
Has anyone read about prolonged reading or other close work leading to myopia because it causes the focusing muscle to be overworked in an unnatural way? I've seen conflicting reports but it makes sense to me. (Says a voracious reader who got her first pair of glasses at age 11.)

I haven't. All I have is anecdata.... I was a crazy reader from the time I was about 3 on. I have perfect eyesight.
My DS1 is also a crazy reader. He's been in glasses since he was 4. He was severely farsighted which caused one of his eyes to turn in to compensate. He does not truly have a lazy eye. He didn't start reading voraciously until after he got his glasses.


----------

