Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums Pre-school Computer for almost-3 year old?

Like you say, though, anecdotal for sure.

FTR, I absolutely do not believe we should all eschew computers. I'm just not as impressed with their value to children as many, and I especially think that very young children (under 6, say) would do better to have screentime very limited. I don't know if I've made it clear, but my job involves reading a LOT of the studies on this subject. I find it a little odd that this group seems inclined to be so skeptical of scientific evidence on this particular subject.

I think ultramarina's fears are understandable, and am convinced that the type of activity matters greatly. Still, I don't think there's something magical about holding something in the hand versus manipulating a virtual object on-screen, and I do think that using the computer as a creative tool is bound to be non-harmful as long as there's no "junk" in the mix.

I've let DS6 play games like Axis and Allies, Warcraft 3, and the like on the PC. To me, that doesn't seem much different from using a set of army men-- except that I can't buy him a set of tiny robotic army men that look and behave like orcs and build things on their own, or roam around a countryside firing miniature toy shells complete with simulated explosions. Nor can I buy him a set that lets him build a tiny robot city, like Sim City, or control a galactic empire. I think that these sorts of computer activities can have a lot of aspects of good board games and building sets about them, except that there's the extra aspect of simulation involved, and of course a great deal more of detail.

There are some educational activities, like computer programming, that can't be done or would be ridiculous to teach without a computer. For the best of those, I refuse to believe that there's anything negative about using a computer-- even for an extended period of time, if so desired by the child-- except possibly eyesight degradation, where I wouldn't be able to have an informed opinion without further reading.

Probably the only thing where I'm not so sure about the long-term effects is our movie watching. I have a two-year-old who loved sitting through the entirety of "2001" (and at the end said "Again!" though we didn't comply ), and who attended his first theater showing before the age of two. While the example of "2001" is a work of art and intellectually stimulating, watching a long movie is indisputably a physically passive activity that lasts for hours (and intellectually passive in at least some ways, as not involving much creative thought during the watching).

All I can say is that DS6 has watched a ton of movies starting from a young age, and I think that the particular movies I picked have sparked or accentuated a lot of creativity in him. I have some powerful symbols from my youth tucked away mostly in my subconscious mind, and it's been fun work remembering and trying to locate them as an adult.

I remember being terrified of a particular scene of the Nautilus from the old Disney "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" movie, which from the glimpse I got as a child seemed like a house lit by eldritch light tearing along the sea bottom. I had nightmares about it for years, and there are plenty of other examples. But I agree with people like Maurice Sendak who feel that children shouldn't be shielded from intense emotions, and that they usually know that death, violence, etc. exist. I think that scary movies, books, etc. (within reason) give a safe way to think and imagine such things, and may drive emotional growth-- and certainly creative growth. In my experience children typically are enthralled with the macabre if given the chance.

I could well be wrong about the effects of the movies on DS6, though-- maybe he would have been different and better in some ways without the movies, and maybe even more creative. (I doubt it, but it's possible.)

One aspect of the movie and TV watching that I'm fairly sure about is that it spurred DS6's capacity for thinking about more and more involved plots, characters, etc. He can recite every twist and turn of his favorite movies (including a lot of the lines, usually) and I wouldn't have had the time to read such complicated stories to him early on. Now he's showing a tendency to prefer books unless there's something he wants to watch, and what he prefers to watch is either a movie with some redeeming qualities or an educational show.

I guess my skepticism comes from this - I do not automatically accept that studies that are done on the "masses" necessarily hold true for gifted kids. I'm not doubting the stats are out there; I'd just be curious whether any of those studies target high IQ children.

I went to college to be a special ed teacher and spent my pre-kid years working with behavior disordered students, so I am very aware of the studies about video games and violence and watching TV and all of it, but I think that across-the-board assumptions don't always hold true for kids with much higher than average IQ's.

My kids were EXHAUSTING when they were toddlers, and their quest for knowledge was insatiable. Even their play was more intense than my friends' kids. They didn't do anything in moderation - it was all forces ahead from the time they woke up until they went to bed. And they all quit needing naps long before I did.

The time they spent on the computer let them continue to learn, explore, express, create, etc. when I was too wiped out to be fully engaged with them any more. I was a stay-at-home mom with all of them, and I wouldn't change a minute of the time I spent with them - but I also know that a lot more was demanded of me physically, mentally, and emotionally because I had three gifted kids. There is no way I could've provided the amount of learning they wanted in a day without having a nervous breakdown, so allowing them access to screen time let them explore until they were satiated. We did the baking together, going to the park, playing with friends, reading books, going to the library, telling stories, etc., but screen time let them go further on their own.

I wouldn't say endorsed. Two hours is their absolute max for all screen-based media. If you read the recommendations, they clearly would rather it were less.

That said, I actually think the kind of use you describe is okay. However, few families actually follow those guidelines.

"Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week). And because they spend so much of that time 'media multitasking' (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7� hours."

--from a Kaiser Family Foundation Report from 2010. It's probably more now.

http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf

from the same report:

"Only about three in ten young people say they have rules about how much time they can spend watching TV (28%) or playing video games (30%), and 36% say the same about using the computer. "

Meanwhile: " Over the past 5 years, time spent reading books remained steady at about :25 a day. "

So...25 min a day reading, 7 1/2 HOURS a day using screen media...

Maybe because we are rationalizing that what we do with our own particular kiddos is somehow different from what those studies suggest, so those of us who have given lots of extra screentime to our kiddos won't feel like we're bad parents.

And though I say the above in jest, it is certainly true that as parents of a kid who is HG+ we have not followed a lot of the standard parenting advice after discovering it didn't fit. We do what works for our family.

Are you referring to the book Exceptionally Gifted Children?
I'm not sure how that would work as the book was originally published in 1993 at the conclusion of the childhood for the sample group. Home computers weren't really available when this sample was little. Also, the take away I got from Gross's book is that a lot of the kids actually didn't turn out okay but that those who didn't have good academic options suffered greatly. http://www.amazon.com/Exceptionally-Gifted-Children-Miraca-Gross/dp/0415314917

This isn't something a parent can buy, but children can use their imaginations. Gifted kids existed long before PCs and many found incredible ways to create and explore the world. Leta Hollingsworth's portrayals of young gifted kids are a great example of that. These kids aren't just consumers of the worlds someone else created, they often created their own worlds with their own laws, languages, social systems.

Sure, and of course I'm not knocking using one's imagination, just pointing out that playing with simulations can be fun, stimulating and possibly even educational too.

If I remember, at one point after I first joined the site, you were advocating the use of coloring books, and I was stating that I don't think that using them is as good as freeform art, since the latter stimulates more creativity. My, how time flies.

BTW, I do agree that it's hard to know how some of the negative effects in the studies would play out with gifted kids. Perhaps it's true that some of the cognitive effects are not an issue. However, GT kids are certainly not immune to obesity, sleep problems, or ADHD.

I don't want to sound high-horsey here--DS has gotten rather more screentime than DD due to various family circumstances. But But I do have a very intense DD8 who is certainly a major asker of questions and whose mental wheels turn very fast. I have looked up lots of things for her on Wikipedia, believe me. But I have not found that screentime is needed to get a break. She plays outside for hours upon hours, she writes plays, she builds and draws and reads. The screens just weren't made very available and she manages to find stuff to do, though we certrainly have made a cool and fun yard, which helps. (I also send the kids outside to play even if they complain. They always have fun once there.) We are also huge consumers of books on CD in the late toddler/early preschooler years. They take the place of movie time pretty nicely.