What do you know? Plopping a toddler down in front of the TV while his brain is still working out its wiring might be bad for him:
Autism may be linked to children watching television when very young, according to researchers.Scientists investigating the dramatic increase in the number of autistic children have said the rise coincided with the use of cable television and videos. Autism is at record levels in the UK, where one in 110 people - more than half a million - has the condition, according to the National Autistic Society.
Researchers investigating autism in the US said that, as recently as 30 years ago, it was thought one in 2,500 people had the condition. Today the figure is one in 166, a 15-fold increase.
This won't do. In this scenario there's no government to blame, only bad parents.
Posted by floridacracker at October 22, 2006 02:43 AMyeah but most of those bad parents think the government is their Mama.. so maybe it's a bad Grandvernment to blame.
Also, I wonder how many autistic children were
not diagnosed in the past..(all the ones in the south were classified as inbred mishaps, who know what the yankees called their own..nunzios I guess)
Another thing to back up the 'bring back the porch swing' movement.
Posted by: csason at October 22, 2006 10:39 AMThat study has been raked over the coals for good reason. They didn't actually compare the rates of autism to TV viewing habits. What they did was look at the rainfall of different regions, and then just assumed that since it rained more the kids spent more time inside watching TV. So what the study really "showed" was that "rain causes autism"*.
* Joke. "Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate causation." The study may not be worthless, they seem to have data that has a statistically significant difference in autism rates that could be worth looking at.
Posted by: dorkafork at October 22, 2006 11:37 AMIn the article, a lady was complaining that they're trying to blame her for her kids watching Teletubbies. When that show came back, people were writing they were aghast about the age of the show's target audience.
My in-laws went to visit a grandson for his third birthday, and the kid can barely talk. He just sat and played with his piles of video 'learning' toys.
DF- I know that; I used to drop by my husband's lab and watch him watch liquid drip from a column. Years spent on perfectly crafted experiments that yielded inconclusive results but added to the body of scientific knowledge.
A lot of verbiage went out about innoculations; I've thought for a long time it's the TV - the brain is still forming connections at that age. It sounds like a good avenue of inquiry.
Plus my mom always said it was bad for our brains. She didn't have cable put in until I was in 12th grade. :(
Posted by: Donnah at October 22, 2006 11:43 AMWow, TV really is B-A-D. I remember as a kid, research conducted by neighbourhood parents concluded that TV caused local children to develop deadly cases of clumsy Kung-Fu fighting and crippling Batman-mania.
But I did notice some news the other week which suggests Autism has genetic causes:
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsaut184937359oct18,0,1999335.story?coll=ny-health-print
I don't know about you, but I was watching Batman when I was in elementary school, not when I was one and two.
Genetic propensity is suggested. A trigger is required.
Posted by: Donnah at October 22, 2006 07:53 PMI would be curious about what the indicators for autism were 30 years ago compared to what they are today. Many apparent increases are caused by changes in definitions.
Posted by: lazzers at October 22, 2006 08:46 PMI did an internship in an autistic classroom back in the day. Then it was as you might imagine: the class was made up almost entirely of very handsome self-absorbed, non-communicative little boys who twirled and did those strange movements with their fingers. Has the definition changed?
Seriously, all the little boys were good-looking. The teacher said it was an odd quirk of autism that everyone remarks on.
Posted by: Donnah at October 22, 2006 08:57 PMHmm. Well, I guess that explains Ben Affleck, at least.
Posted by: rg at October 22, 2006 11:28 PMI have Asperger's Syndrome - what's generally termed a light case of autism (24's Chloe, especially in Day 3, is a very good representation). There was no television where I lived until I was six, so one can hardly blame me on TV.
The reason for the increase in the numbers of autistic children is the reason for the increase in almost everything else - an industry is building around it, and, thus, the definition broadens.
Glenn Gould, the concert pianist who became famous in the 50s, probably had Asperger's Syndrome. But at the time, he was described as a loner, an insomniac, amusing when he wanted to be, but a "young fogy." At the time, he was considered a creative eccentric. Today, he'd be added to the growing list of autistics and considered a victim.
As for me, I prefer to be thought of as hard to get along with, because, after all, I'm right and all of you who disagree with me are wrong. And besides, I don't care what you think, I'd rather read a book. Ha.
Posted by: Juan Paxety at October 23, 2006 07:37 AMHow true. In fact, some psychologists don't even think AS is a disease:
http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/7977/la_id/1.htm
and that it's overhyped:
"It was introduced into the official classification systems in 1994 and has grown in popularity as a diagnosis, even though its validity has not been clearly established. It is interesting to note that it was introduced not so much as an indication of its status as a 'true' disorder, but more to stimulate research ... its validity is very much in question."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Research
But that's AS and not autism as we're looking at for this post.
None of this stuff is chiseled in stone; there's a lot of theorizing and it could all change next year.
I figure that if Michelle Malkin can post about a supposed link between autism and vaccinations, I can do one for autism and TV/computerized games. ;)