18 months old crazy for smartphone and tablet

fits

We had no screens at all until 18 months and then introduced a bit on laptop. We have no tv. They are always mad to get our phones but they are out of bounds except in rare cases eg a hospital visit last week. They probably get an hour a day of screen time on the laptop recently. Half an hour morning and evening. It’s too much.

That said they both have language delays and I still feel like a rubbish parent at times. Twins just turned two

iamwhoiam

bp wrote: »

We allow up to 30 mins on weekends only or if sick for an almost 3 year old.

Cannot control grandparents unfortunately!

I am a grandparent and look after my grandchild daily . From an early age we were asked not to use the I pad excessively and we dont .We take her to the park, beach , mountains ,or out to the sea .We play Lego and jigsaws etc .When we are out driving we have CD's for her and books in the car .
She goes to school now and the one thing her teacher asked was no TV and no I pad before school .She does watch a bit at weekends and uses the i pad at home too for a while .
At about 4 o clock she is tired and grumpy and she gets the i pad for about half and hour .We reared our own without i pads so we find it easy not to need them to keep her occupied .Of course it can be done .

margo321

Id stop giving it to her. id turn it off give it to her and say battery is dead or its broke and play with her so she has another option

Atlantic Dawn

I'd be more concerned about damage to their eyesite at that age from using tablets/smartphones.

Sheepdish1

At that age they have zero impulse control so they can understand “gone” but its easier to just not give it at all as they don’t understand moderation at all.

Smart phones and tablets are everywhere and portable so it is far easier not to give them ever. I think there’s a big difference watching a bit of music or a little cartoon on a tv compared to watching it on a device that can be carried around and completely portable.

I understand it is easier at times to give them those things to occupy them but children should be looking around them, interacting with people and learning to play etc. I understand parents need a break but there is something very sad about seeing a family of four out at dinner and all of them watching screens at the table when they should be talking etc

pwurple

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about damage to their eyesite at that age from using tablets/smartphones.

That's a myth, isn't it? I don't think screens are believed to damage eyesight anymore.

Liam McPoyle

pwurple wrote: »

That's a myth, isn't it? I don't think screens are believed to damage eyesight anymore.

Maybe for adults but a baby / child's eyes are only developing, having a bright light consistently shone into them couldn't be good I wouldn't have thought.

Our 22 month old has zero screen time, either TV or phones. He loves music so the only time he gets his hands on my phone is when spotify is going and I need to distract him to change his nappy or something like that. We rarely have the tv on in his presence and even when we do he only passes a mild interest in it.

My 4 year old niece would have had alot of screen time during the early stages and she has been wearing glasses since she was 2. I also notice alot more kids nowadays wearing glasses too. Could be a coincidence of course but there would appear to be a correlation with increased visual media options and poorer eyesight in general.

Dravokivich

I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that at all. There's much more screening for eyesight, hearing and attention span now, then when we were all kids. What used to be starting to get picked up on in school is probably being caught earlier now as a result. My son had his first hearing test at 4. Mine was when I was 11.

iamwhoiam

Liam McPoyle wrote: »

Maybe for adults but a baby / child's eyes are only developing, having a bright light consistently shone into them couldn't be good I wouldn't have thought.



My 4 year old niece would have had alot of screen time during the early stages and she has been wearing glasses since she was 2. I also notice alot more kids nowadays wearing glasses too. Could be a coincidence of course but there would appear to be a correlation with increased visual media options and poorer eyesight in general.

Why does your niece wear glasses ? Then the majority of 2 year old wear glasses to correct a congenital squint and not for damage caused by environmental issue

lazygal

Dravokivich wrote: »

I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that at all. There's much more screening for eyesight, hearing and attention span now, then when we were all kids. What used to be starting to get picked up on in school is probably being caught earlier now as a result. My son had his first hearing test at 4. Mine was when I was 11.

And my second and third had hearing tested at three days old!

seamus

Dravokivich wrote: »

I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that at all. There's much more screening for eyesight, hearing and attention span now, then when we were all kids. What used to be starting to get picked up on in school is probably being caught earlier now as a result. My son had his first hearing test at 4. Mine was when I was 11.

This.

I already had glasses before I had my first vision test in school at 11. In hindsight I probably needed them from the age of 6 or 7. My daughter got her first eye test in the first term of primary school.

So while it's correct to say that more kids are wearing glasses now, that's probably because they're being caught earlier.

I know lots of people who didn't even know they needed glasses until they tried to get a driving licence.

_Brian

Fair play to posters above recognising that the made a mistake with the screen time with small kids.

I’ve seen this first hand and it’s a real pity, they loose out on play and building motor skills through lack of physical play.

I have seen it repaired though and kids catch up quickly.

Firstly I’d say fight your battles on your own turf at home, when your out isn’t the time to take a stand.

Find some new experiences like colouring or painting they can be introduced to instead of screens. It will be hard, there will be crying annd there will be tantrums.

pwurple

Liam McPoyle wrote: »

Maybe for adults but a baby / child's eyes are only developing, having a bright light consistently shone into them couldn't be good I wouldn't have thought.

Our 22 month old has zero screen time, either TV or phones. He loves music so the only time he gets his hands on my phone is when spotify is going and I need to distract him to change his nappy or something like that. We rarely have the tv on in his presence and even when we do he only passes a mild interest in it.

My 4 year old niece would have had alot of screen time during the early stages and she has been wearing glasses since she was 2. I also notice alot more kids nowadays wearing glasses too. Could be a coincidence of course but there would appear to be a correlation with increased visual media options and poorer eyesight in general.

Light does not damage eyes. We are not underground creatures. People used to think books damaged our brains.

And as for the screens, I agree they should be limited, but complete bans on technology exposure up to a random age is unfounded. Moderation, and being mindful of the content is the key.... They can be a great tool, for creativity, communication and education, rather than just a method of mindless consumption.

And your 4 year old niece more than likely had a squint being corrected at that age.

Rubberchikken

stop giving it to her. ride out the tantrums. it'll pass.
yes it was wrong and lazy to give the phone/iPad in the first place but you can undo that. what you can do is change how you get her to accept toys books etc to play with instead.
generations of kids have managed with a toy or book or even, shock horror, a parent conversing with them while waiting at doctors/dentist/shop so try one of those.

farmchoice

Rubberchikken wrote: »

stop giving it to her. ride out the tantrums. it'll pass.
yes it was wrong and lazy to give the phone/iPad in the first place but you can undo that. what you can do is change how you get her to accept toys books etc to play with instead.
generations of kids have managed with a toy or book or even, shock horror, a parent conversing with them while waiting at doctors/dentist/shop so try one of those.

thousands of generations of kids survived without books or much in the way of toys as well, in fact at least 99% of children were reared without electricity running water or any form of health care.
if you are going to go back in time do it properly, Books and doctors appointments are a slippery slope, as this thread graphically illustrates.

we were hoping to go back to a full hunter gatherer lifestyle (the way kids were meant to be raised) but unfortunately the deforestation of Ireland makes that practically difficult and while we have a well documented 5000 year history of farming here in north mayo its all a bit too modern for us, so for now we are going to stick with picking berries in the autumn and i'm keeping an eye out for any decent looking roadkill.

pwurple

Was going to say also, while it can become a problem alright, (like my own post-granny de-peppa effort), for the most part, I think we need to cut parents a bit of slack about these devices. I saw someone shoot a withering look and give an audible tut at a young family who had just given their toddler a tablet in a restaurant over the weekend. There's no need for that whatsoever.

None of us know what's going on in people's lives. That family had a 7-ish year old in sports gear with them, the mam and dad looked fairly shattered, the mum was trying to breastfeed at the table. I'd guess they were after standing on the sidelines of some sports event in the freezing cold with the eldest, and needed food/warm place to get themselves back in shape again. The toddler was cranky and grabbing at the baby and the mum's boob, the dad was on autopilot, knocked over his water... probably lack of sleep. The 7 year old was hyped up and chatty. I know we all want to teach kids to behave in restaurants, sit, take turns talking, eat with cutlery, but hungry tired cold cranky toddlers don't comply with this. Especially when you've two other smallies to manage, while waiting for food, and you've no hands left to hold a book for them, and they've read the bloody book 17 times already at the previous thing. Yup, damn right get out the emergency entertainment so you can keep the show on the road.

fits

Ah yes. We all have those days.

Andrewf20

Family life has really changed in the last 25 years. Now it seems that most parents are both working and I reckon this is one of the main reasons the kids are plonked in front of the tv or iPad.

Parents are just too tired. Between work, frantic commutes with creche and school runs and doing the house and car chores, trying the find the energy and time to engage with energetic 3 years olds is a challenge more than ever.

lazygal

My parents both worked when we were children, as did my husband's parents. I was in creche from 12 weeks of age. We had an Apple computer in the house from when I was about six, my father got it through work. We had loads of TV every Saturday and Sunday morning too. We're all functioning adults. Working parents have always been the norm, my grandparents all worked on family farms.

Andrewf20

lazygal wrote: »

My parents both worked when we were children, as did my husband's parents. I was in creche from 12 weeks of age. We had an Apple computer in the house from when I was about six, my father got it through work. We had loads of TV every Saturday and Sunday morning too. We're all functioning adults. Working parents have always been the norm, my grandparents all worked on family farms.

I didn't find this to be my experience growing up. All of of my childhood friends had mothers who didn't work back in the late 80s and early 1990s. Almost all of my adult friends tell the same story. The was no such thing as an after school service to bring kids to / from school to Montessori / creche, at least in the schools I went to in north dublin. Now it appears to be a common thing.

The cost of housing since the early 2000s has taken off. I remember you could buy a house (new 3 bed semi d) in dunshauglin in 1996 for 69,000 pounds, doable on 1 fairly decent salary.Now a house there cost about 300,000 euro.

lazygal

I grew up in Dublin and several class mates had two working parents. They went to child minder and after school services. That's besides the children of single working parents.

shesty

Lazygal, what age are you?!!I am an early 80s baby but yes, both parents worked, we had a minder.There was a big mix of working and stay at home parents in our area.
Computer in our house was a Dell one though, not til I was a teen I'd say.Apple wasn't heard of then!!!

lazygal

I'm 37. We had a good bit of tech in the house and we weren't an outlier by any stretch.

brokensoul

pwurple wrote: »

Light does not damage eyes. We are not underground creatures. People used to think books damaged our brains.

And as for the screens, I agree they should be limited, but complete bans on technology exposure up to a random age is unfounded. Moderation, and being mindful of the content is the key.... They can be a great tool, for creativity, communication and education, rather than just a method of mindless consumption.

And your 4 year old niece more than likely had a squint being corrected at that age.

Not entirely unfounded to be fair. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has for a long time recommended no screen time at all for children under 2, for example, based on continuous studies since the 1990s

Dr Mary Aiken has some good articles on the topic.