Only if bewitched by the phrase. It's hard enough to agree philosophically on what constitutes well being for humans, so to accept psychological measures of it without very careful examination is a leap of faith I wouldn't take.
> And I can deny the detrimental effects of gaming because studies have repeatedly debunked that idea.
Again, you're taking a lot on faith there based on a relatively small amount of research done during only a few years. Exposing young people during significant portions of their waking hours to computers/screens is one of the widest-scale social experiments ever undertaken. It could take generations to fully understand its implications.
I don't have a horse in this particular race and agree that many comments on the topic smack of moral panic. The most rational thing to do at this stage is reserve judgement. We don't know everything, and it's very early days yet. Having said that, if I were a parent, given the gravity of the responsibility, I'd be cautious at least.
>if I were a parent, given the gravity of the responsibility, I'd be cautious at least.
I'm curious as to what this entails, because
>Exposing young people during significant portions of their waking hours to computers/screens is one of the widest-scale social experiments ever undertaken.
This is false. A kid in the year 2000 has a radically different childhood from a kid in 1950 (who had the kind of childhood that people opposing screentime seem to want), who in turn has a radically different childhood from a kid in 1850 (who was probably working in a coal mine or sweeping chimneys or something).
There is no way to be cautiously conservative because there is no default to default to. In fact, I find it a remarkable coincidence that out of humanity's 100,000 year history, the perfect childhood just happens to be the one that today's old people had. Rest assured that in 1950, there were just as many old people bemoaning their youth that didn't know the value of hard work and spent all their time watching movies.
A good response & I'm definitely sympathetic to the notion that moral panics centre around departures from familiar (recent) norms.
I still hold to the claim that the screen use experiment is (1) particularly radical in that it involves substantially reducing children's exposure to the physical environment in which humans have evolved to develop (ie. that of human-scale 3D animate & inanimate things with which they physically interact). Note that 'radical' doesn't necessarily mean more harmful - just that it's hard to predict the developmental outcome as it's such a departure. And that it is (2) notably large scale due to the greater homogeneity of the change. A far larger proportion of kids are made subject to this particular experiment than in the past -- neither indigenous Australians not upper class English kids were chimney sweeps in the 19th C, but I'm sure both groups love their screens now.
Caution needn't mean adhering rigidly to an outdated template - that would be more like extreme conservatism or fundamentalism. It could just mean, er, caution! If I had kids, I'd consider how much screen time of different types they would be allowed, and how it might be balanced or blended with other activities. Like other parents, I would have no way of being certain about the answer most likely to lead to flourishing, I'd just have to make my best guess. I'm pretty sure for me that guess wouldn't be 'pass the child-training buck to Facebook & Google'. They take 'training' far too literally for comfort.
[Edit: My 'caution' would particularly extend to alarms &/or reassurances coming from studies such as this. For a number of reasons, it's a field I don't find very convincing ]
It is no harmful effect in families without problems. Meaning, parents in those studies observe kids and intervene when there is problem. Which makes kid ok, but also makes parent more resentful toward games and screen time.
If parent had to spend a lot of time arguing with kid and removing device etc after seeing kid behaving in worst ways, the parent will talk about bad effects of gaming without there being actual long term impact on kid. Because it took additional effort to counteract it.
Also, studies are about whether kids become more aggressive in long term. Parental annoyance of often about kids becoming harder to deal with, less capable to communicate or more jerk right now.
> And I can deny the detrimental effects of gaming because studies have repeatedly debunked that idea.
Again, you're taking a lot on faith there based on a relatively small amount of research done during only a few years. Exposing young people during significant portions of their waking hours to computers/screens is one of the widest-scale social experiments ever undertaken. It could take generations to fully understand its implications.
I don't have a horse in this particular race and agree that many comments on the topic smack of moral panic. The most rational thing to do at this stage is reserve judgement. We don't know everything, and it's very early days yet. Having said that, if I were a parent, given the gravity of the responsibility, I'd be cautious at least.