What I'm saying is that if you compare someone that watches TV regularly (incessantly?) and someone that doesn't, my experience is that the one that doesn't watch it will be smarter, more imaginitive, and generally better scholastically and in their career.

I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, just listing my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that seems to show a general trend.

I'm not getting your point about third world countries. Are you saying most of the kids are stupid in those countries? If so, perhaps that's a reflection of poor education, not actual intelligence. Another thing is that the disparities between kids there can easily be traced back to other factors - how much they get to eat, how hard they have to work outside of school, how often they actually attend school, etc, etc...

Again, if you look back to what I said, at no point did I say you can't watch TV if you want to be smart. Genetics certainly play a part here.

Your experience (or, perhaps, just your opinion?) obviously differs. All I know is that the majority of the people that I know that sit in front of a TV every day after work or school are generally underachievers that really aren't going anywhere.

I'm not trying to say that I have a hard and fast rule, just saying that I see a trend. If you don't, fine. Doesn't bother me. However, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You say there is no correlation between owning a TV and being smart. I agree, because that doesn't address whether or not one watches the TV. However, it seems silly to me to expect that when comparing two persons, one of which watches "flat line entertainment" while the other actually uses their brain outside of school/work, they'll both somehow turn out the same.

Again, your mileage may vary.

 

There is no correlation b/w watching TV and intelligence level. There is a correlation b/w watching too much TV and bad grades. Of course, obviously by watching too much TV, one would take required time away from their studies. However replace watching TV with too much eating, sleeping, going out, playing sports and bad grades will result.

My gripe about this study is not its results, since it restated the obvious, but why. Why was this study conducted in the first place? Its a horrible waste of money and resources that could have been better used for another purpose, such as those I mentioned.

 

You (and others) keep saying "There is no correlation" but have shown nothing to back that up. It would appear that study after study shows that watching TV is generally detrimental (or inhibiting) in one way or another. What do you have to show differently?

I ask again, why would you expect someone that watches TV a lot to develop and maintain their intelligence the same as someone that engages in more challenging pastimes (such as reading, sporting activities, etc, etc)?

You're saying that someone that does something mindless is going to develop and maintain a level of intelligence also achieved by those that do far more engaging, thought-requiring activities?

I will concede one point, though - I would imagine that once you reach mid-teens, chances are you're not going to see a big difference. By that I mean, if you START to watch TV a lot later in life, you won't see a big difference between that person and one that has watched little to no TV in life.

However, let one kid watch 3 hours of TV per day (from one year until they're, say, fourteen) and let another do anything BUT watch TV and I guarantee that, given the same kind of education, feeding, etc, etc, 95% of the time the kid that doesn't watch TV will excel in just about every measurable way. It's only logical, in my opinion. Furthermore, if one kid watches TV 3 hours a day and the other reads 3 hours a day, I can guarantee the reader will score higher than the TV watcher on just about everything. Why? Because they're actually using their brain and developing useful knowledge and skills...

 

I'm referring to teenagers and adults, not little children. Of course if a child reads, studies instead of watching TV, they will be smarter. Thank you for stating the obvious.

This is not even my argument. Mine is why is this study conducted in the first place? Do you know how bad our public school system is? Its a joke. Instead of worring about TV and its ill effects, shouldn't we be more concerned about where we send our kids to for 8 hours a day? I am.

 

No, I didn't say "read and study", I just said "read". Read novels. Read trash, for all I care - it's still better than TV programs of just about any sort.

To this point, you hadn't stated that you were talking about adults and teenagers. Even then, as I said, teenagers are still developing their minds for quite some time and it is my opinion that TV isn't helping their development in the least (that is, helping it positively).

I'm glad you're seeing my point as obvious, though. It's about time.

That said, no, I don't know how bad your public school system is. I went to school in Canada. Even in a poorly rated province (in terms of education), I still did just fine in post-secondary educational institutions, so I'm okay with the education I got. I'm sure it can get better, but we'll see. I guess I'll find out when my daugther starts to attend...

Last of all, I do agree - this study should have never have gotten off the ground. The conclusion should have been obvious from the get-go.

 

So if the majority of the "bad grades" group wear white socks is it safe to conclude that wearing white socks leads to bad grades?

 

^ that's what he's saying!

The mere idea that TV watching causes bad grades is ludicrous.

If all the TV was on was educational shows, the kid would learn a lot. More than reading trash. You could tape a teacher teaching a lesson plan and play it on the TV instantly the child would go dumb. I'm saying use your head. No shit if they watch power rangers all day and don't have supportive parents that make them learn, do homework, watch informative programs well it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

OH YEAH you want proof that watching TV increases childrens ability to learn and knowledge, hunt down the studies on sesame street. Kids learn how to start speaking spanish, sign language, the alphabet, counting, etc....

What I'm saying about third world countries is that they never watch TV so they should be the smartest freakin people in the world according to you.


Now change that to instead of watching standard TV if they read they would become smarter, well than what your truly saying is that people who read a lot, especially when younger, tend to be more knowledgeable I'd agree with you. However to say watching TV makes for bad grades well thats with a capital B!

Rather intelligence (the size of your cup) is actually learned has been argued quite a bit. I would say that only your want to learn or rather your aptitude to learn can be increased, not your intelligence.

 

Perhaps you should read everything I said.

I never said that watching TV caused bad grades. I said watching TV causes WORSE grades in comparison to those that don't watch it at all (or watch it very little). Even someone who reads comics all day is using his brain more and developing his mind. As I pointed out, a kid that reads three hours a day (trashy novels/comics or no) is still generally going to do better scholastically and probably in general than the kid that watches three hours of TV a day.

That's it. We've both got opinions and no proof. Get over it. Your opinion is just as ludicrous as mine.

I don't have a TV and I don't watch it. You probably do. Since you think you're smart, you're a walking testimony to your opinion. Since I think I'm smart, I'm a walking testimony to mine.

Shall we circle the wagons one more time, or do you really want a bigger stick to beat a dead horse? We disagree - get over it (and try reading everything before you reply).

 

I read everything you wrote.

You want proof that watching TV can make you smarter. Here you go

http://www.sesameworkshop.org/aboutus/pdf/...orkshop2004.pdf

Real studies conducted by real people, maybe you should get over it.


Sesame Street works.
Among the more than 1,000 studies on record are those telling us that
Sesame Street reaches children in every demographic group, that preschoolers
who watch are more likely to show signs of emerging literacy and numeracy
skills than nonviewers, and that the Sesame Street advantage lasts: Teens who
watched as children had better grades in high school, read more books for
pleasure, placed higher value on academic achievement, and expressed less
aggressive attitudes than those who watched rarely or not at all.


The visual stimulation that TV can give when used as an educational tool trumps reading comic books anyday.

"Even someone who reads comics all day is using his brain more and developing his mind"

http://www.sesameworkshop.org/aboutus/why_root.php


How TV helps education

http://tiger.towson.edu/users/jmccar...ntechnolgy.htm

How sesame street is based on research and the stats for children watching shows it improves intellectual, emotional, and motivational skills

http://enhancinged.wgbh.org/kids/cas...ame/index.html

I think that's enough proof.

Now I want to know how the light emitted through a cathode ray tube causes worse grades. It can't, its only light and there is no scientific evidence that says it kills brain cells. That's my point. If you want you kid to achieve you have to be an active parent. Sure, when your child is watching the power rangers 24/7 they are wasting time in which they could be learning better stuff. However if you're an active parent you're only going to let them watch things that will promote their growth. Maybe as a treat a childhood made for TV story or something, not crap. The idea that TV lowers grades has absolutely no scientific fact. To prove that you'd have to take a group of children who never watched TV in there life, and then put them in front of a TV for a week solid. Then send them back off to school and see if their grades went down. Shocker they wouldn't. However there are studies that show children learn from educational television programming. About as shocking as children who have parents that don't care about them are more likely to fail in life on almost every aspect.

 

Brilliant! Go to the one's who produce TV and ask them if what they do is helpful! Really - what answer do you think they'd give? A resounding "Wow - we suck! We're not doing a world of good"? I didn't think so....

Of course they'll say it's helpful. Of course they'll say it's good. That's how they make a living, for pete's sake.

That said, I have never dismissed educational programs. They're not "flat line" entertainment - they're educational. Again, if you READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN you'd see that I didn't dismiss TV as a whole, just the junk that most people use to occupy their time and life. Also note that I said that READING comic books (not LOOKING AT comic books) is better than TV. And again, I was talking about general programming, not necessarily educational programming.

Furthermore, you're using your argument as your source - not exactly a legit answer. Nor is some obscure student posting his thesis/research paper (so-called) on the internet. They quote "studies", which you have not read and make some general statements. You have ZERO idea of what those studies concluded, what the parameters were, and who participated.

Seriously, listen to what you're saying and who your sources are. You're basing your argument on studies QUOTED by a TV program. I've seen car commercials quote reviews of their cars that bashed them badly....but had one nice thing to say in the whole article. Guess what showed up on the commercial. That's right - the good thing that was said.

Sorry, but you'll have to try harder. Or move on with life. Again, we disagree. Unless your happiness is tied to internet arguing, I'd let it go, just like I am.