this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
1482 points (98.6% liked)
memes
10094 readers
2269 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That could be a good experience for the baby.
I wonder if there is some research showing the effects on exposing babies to visual art.
maybe, but i feel like while it may correlate, it's not the cause. the cause is more likely that if a parent cares enough to show their child art, they're probably more nurturing and prioritize academia more than parents who raise an iPad kid
Yeah this would be one that's really hard to separate causation from correlation that's for sure
But it's safe to say: Every single person who confuses correlation and causation ends up dying.
Who's to say they're not looking at art on their ipad? Not being able to afford or have the time or ability to take a day off and travel to a gallery, or having a neurodiverse kid who doesn't like crowded spaces, or whatever other reason they might be using an ipad doesn't make "ipad kids" bad.
I don't disagree with your larger point, just with the framing of "ipad kids" as the bad part when it's a symptom (of a society where people feel obliged to have kids even if they don't want them and/or are required to work so hard just to survive that they don't have the time and energy to spend with their children).
(and for the record just to save any jumping to conclusions - I don't have kids, don't plan to, this isn't some defensive thing, I just think that your framing is off)
my apologies. i meant "iPad kid" as in the Internet stereotype where the kid essentially throws a tantrum if they can't watch their skibidi toilet. and their parents don't take initiative to engage the child in something more beneficial
if the child uses an iPad to look at art, that's a great use of the tool and i fully support it
hopefully that clears up what i meant :)
I appreciate you clarifying, I still think you're putting the emphasis on the wrong thing though - the ipad is a tool. What you might see as a "tantrum" might be an autistic meltdown because whatever it is they're looking at on the ipad is calming to them. It might not be. And their parent absolutely might not be invested in engaging the child, but they might also not know how (because they weren't engaged with and don't have a support system to teach them how), but my point is a kid using an ipad (or even being dependant on one) indicates nothing other than they're using an ipad, and we shouldn't be assuming anything about kids or parents based on their use, especially nowadays where everyone uses a phone or an ipad to do a large percentage of our daily tasks and interactions.
I can tell you from experience that a parent engaging in supposedly more beneficial things also doesn't indicate them being a good parent, they can be just as neglectful and even abusive, but because they seem "educated" people look the other way and assume they know what they're doing and couldn't possibly cause harm.
Sorry to ramble, I'm not trying to have a go at you, I just think it's important to frame this sort of thing correctly, otherwise we can't address the actual causes of the problems (like I mentioned before - a society where many people feel pressured to have kids because "it's the done thing" rather than because they actually want or are ready for them, and/or the system squeezing people to the point where they just don't have the time/energy/knowledge/support systems to be good parents).
Interesting new-to-me recommendations on screen usage for kids from AAP via NPR (2016):
Kids 2-5 should limit to one hour per day, and co-view with caregivers.
I’d be surprised if someone read “iPad kid” as “kid whose mom spends seven hours per week sharing together in PBS4iPad”.
I’m glad you’re sticking up for autistic kids and overworked parents. I do think it’s good to advocate against wholesale turnover of parenting to dopamine scrollers… wherever possible! If you work three minimum wage jobs to survive, I hope we recognize you’ll have to do the best you can.
I wish I could live somewhere where art galleries are crowded...
Or maybe what you think of as crowded and an autistic person thinks of as crowded aren't necessarily the same?
When I go to museums and galleries, it's entirely typical for me to see like 2-3 people in the same area as myself. In one gallery that I used to frequent I was usually the only person inside at all.
2-3 people is certainly very far from a crowd.
And your experience of 2-3 people in a gallery is far from typical. Either way, you're deliberately missing the point..
I don't know about visual art but there is about music. Exposing a baby to complex music (many notes), like classical and jazz can help develop perfect pitch. The brain learns musical notes like it learns language.
Depends on the art. High contrast imagery is generally considered developmentally important.
Michigan State Study
Figures babies aren't known for appreciation of artistic subtree
Babies take to art at an impressive rate, you just have to really grind their face into it.
The crying stops once they understand the art.
Idk, clearly the baby thinks it's a mediocre piece of art😐