what is life @sisi-loves-you - Tumblr Blog

legallybrunettedotcom

inbabylontheywept

Until death, all defeat is psychological.

theshitpostcalligrapher

vibes

huiracha

260801 @ run it world tour in seoul

birdplushie

often you will see things online where you just have to be like "what a strange thing to say" or "i don't think that's true :)" to yourself and try to move on or you will lose your mind

my-dailydreams

freezi-drink

Hey um??

Via ID in alt

sagetheunwise

licking you bee wanted your sweat. that second one was just a freak I think

mettatonsfinalform

Some bees collect fibres for their tiny nests! They are usually more polite about it though

rabbitindisguise

"natural shedding is taking too fucking long get it together mammal" <- like that maybe. Bee has places to bee 🐝

dahlia-molinas

if christopher nolan was really the visionary and ground-breaking director everyone claims he is he would have cast ben affleck as penelope

productofaritual

Love character relationships that can only be described as "whatever the fuck these two have going on"

blckgirlacid

I need my weird alone time or I will explode

rottingtrouble-child

I saw this video about a doctor who performed an MRI on a 5 year old and discovered she essentially had “brain damage” from excessive iPad use, as the white matter in her brain couldn’t form properly due to an understimulated environment.

Hmm it’s almost like there’s supposed to be adult figures responsible for monitoring her screen time and making sure she develops properly… certainly this isn’t the result of neglect at the hands of her parents…

dragon-in-a-fez

I'm gonna cut off the whole long-ass pointless thread I saw talking about the finer points of taking iPads from babies because here's the thing:

"a doctor did an MRI and found that a kid had brain damage from iPad use" is a lie. that's not how MRIs work. that's not how brain damage works. if you're arguing about whose responsibility it was to prevent this from happening, you are starting from a premise that is not just unproven, it's impossible. you might as well be talking about whose responsibility it was to make sure the moon didn't get made out of pudding.

plushypretzel

This study found a link between higher rates of screen-based media use and "lower microstructural integrity of brain white matter tracts supporting language and emergent literacy skills in prekindergarten children". This study demonstrates real developmental harm associated with overuse of screens at a young age but OP was exaggerating the findings and admits their understanding of this paper came from a fear-mongering type reel/short video.

I have not read and assessed the quality of the study itself. I'm not a doctor and have only a small amount of familiarity with neuroscience through my linguistics postgrad. I'd be interested to hear a more qualified take on this study.

The take-away for most people should be: limit your child's screen time or it may seriously impact their early childhood development, including physical brain development. Read all uncited information on the internet with a grain of salt.

dragon-in-a-fez

kids & tech was my PhD area so I can give you a qualified take.

as with basically every study on the topic of "screens and kid brains", this one:

doesn't differentiate between types of screen-based activities

is correlational, not experimental, and doesn't control for obvious confounding variables

which makes it basically useless.

take, for example, the existence of tablet apps that are specifically meant for children and parents to use to read together. if "reading with parents" is the actual underlying variable impacting white matter growth, then the medium (screen vs paper) might not matter at all!

if "screen time" is a meaningful construct then so is "paper time", and it would be reasonable to collapse doing crossword puzzles, completing tax forms, writing personal letters, reading novels, and ordering from restaurant menus into one metric and try to measure its impact on brain development. but we don't do that because it's obviously stupid.

topcommenter

I don't know much about MRIs, but I find it crazy how this implies a simple brain scan can reveal the patients hidden sins, like screen time, when diagnosing and differentiating dementias is so difficult. Early diagnosis in a lot of physical brain illness still happens by symptoms, rather than looking at the brain scan, because the changes are not visible until the disease is severe and obvious.

Also kids brains are still growing and I'm kind of curious about how you'd compare them.

dragon-in-a-fez

the "still growing" thing is a bit misleading since the human brain changes throughout the lifespan. but one of the coolest things about the extreme neuroplasticity of young brains is that there's some evidence they can shift which brain regions perform specific tasks - a finding that calls a huge portion of studies like this into question because a lot of them rely on measuring activity in certain areas of the brain.

brightstarrymoon

@dragon-in-a-fez how the FUCK do you have a PHD and yet are unable to understand clear sarcasm. He wasn't supporting the idea of "brain damage" in the child. The very word is in quotations because it's a sensationalist topic and article that probably isn't true. It's hinting at how people will blame children instead of parents for not developmentally taking care of their children and nursing them through critical stages in their lives. The deffered abuse. NOT the article. That's why the shits in quotation marks. I think you should consider heading back to school.

dragon-in-a-fez

"learn to read" says tumblr user who missed the entire point of what they're responding to.

I did not in any way imply that op was uncritical about the term "brain damage". you're going full "make up a guy to get mad at" there.

however:

1. any "we should blame the parents not the kids!" response still pretty clearly implies there is something happening we need to blame someone for

2. whether they agreed with the use of the term "brain damage" or not, they have explicitly agreed with the framework of "screen time" as a meaningful construct that should be monitored and controlled because it "impacts development".

if you follow your own advice about reading comprehension you might notice that point 1 (as also piled onto by multiple people who are not op) is what my first comment focused on, and point 2 is what I discussed in subsequent additions.

(also for the record there are a LOT of people with PhDs who struggle to recognise sarcasm, it's called the overrepresentation of neurodivergent people in academia)