"It's possible that the same thing is happening in this group of research as well."
In this case we already know that the most important mediating variables for predicting outcomes on the relevant measures are parent-child talk and self-directed play, so it's very easy to see how each hour of watching TV causes increasing damage. I'm sure some of the gap is because of
mere correlation, but it's also clear that TV watching itself is a huge part of the problem if only because it prevents the child from getting the types of interactions they need for their brains to develop properly. (whether or not the TV itself fries their dopamine system or whatever directly is still an open question.)
But you're not grasping the point. Correlation is not causation. If parents are poor, work three jobs ("fantastic!", says George Bush), and don't have time to tutor their kids, their kids may watch more TV and may have lower test scores..... but there's absolutely no proof anywhere that TV "causes damage". None. Zero. Nil.
He wrote "I'm sure some of the gap is because of mere correlation", so I think he IS grasping the point.
Personally I thin it is OBVIOUS that TV is damaging children since it is unnatural the same way sugar is. The kids of our ancestors have been crawling around on the floor exploring and playing for millions of years - sitting in front of flickering lights for hours on end for just 30 years.
If the kids are otherwise healthy and eat a lot of the medicines, then yes, obviously. Eating a lot of medicines is OBVIOUSLY very bad for healthy children.
You're moving the goalpost and being intentionally obtuse.
Vaccines then. Clothes. Shoes.
Want more examples of "unnatural" things?
The point is to equate something being "unnatural", whatever that is supposed to mean, with it being "OBVIOUSLY bad" is so inane that I really do hope you're either a troll or just plain did not think through what you wrote.
It is supposed to mean huge changes from the relatively stable environment present during human evolution. The environment we are adapted to operating in. Unless you are a creationist, that should be pretty obvious.
It's not just that you're not interacting with them, it's that it's preventing them from engaging in self-directed play, which is necessary for developing executive function among other things.
The reason TV is being singled out specifically is because it's basically causing permanent brain damage in 90+% of kids. Sure, there are other ways of fucking up your kids as well, but in terms of what people are actually doing TV is at or near the top of the list.
All these people who think it's ok to let their kids watch 'just an hour' of TV per day are probably why ADHD now effects over 9% of kids.
The researchers make claims like the kids watching tv have no idea what's going on. My kids would play Angry Birds and rearrange our iPhone icons to make their favorite apps more accessible. (They could also explain some of what was going on in tv shows they liked.)
Maybe these researchers are Skinnerian behaviorists who think the kids are just exhibiting behavior.
Not "kids". Kids under two. Here's the sentence you're quoting:
Unlike school-age children, infants and toddlers “just have no idea what’s going on” no matter how well done a video is, Dr. Troseth said.
How old are your kids?
The article also mentions specifically that once kids are over 3, they can learn from some TV -- Sesame Street specifically has been the subject of lots of studies, and shows some benefits, though it still can't compare with learning from actual people.
That's the main takeaway -- for kids under 2, it's actively harmful; for kids over two, it's not as bad, but kids will still be better off if it's possible to spend those hours interacting with people or playing (by themselves, with others, anything).
In this case we already know that the most important mediating variables for predicting outcomes on the relevant measures are parent-child talk and self-directed play, so it's very easy to see how each hour of watching TV causes increasing damage. I'm sure some of the gap is because of mere correlation, but it's also clear that TV watching itself is a huge part of the problem if only because it prevents the child from getting the types of interactions they need for their brains to develop properly. (whether or not the TV itself fries their dopamine system or whatever directly is still an open question.)