I Fell For It.

Yep, I did. I didn't think I'd fall for it again so easily (and so soon!), but it happened.

I made a critical lapse in judgement.

My previous post on childhood development and television has one major, serious flaw; I wrote what I believe. Why is this a flaw? Quite simply, what we "believe" - our "world view", if you will - has a vetoing effect on what we say and do.

This may seem obvious, but bear with me.

Over the course of writing this blog I have attempt to look past my own personal beliefs, and try to understand the motivations and thought processes behind certain courses of action. Some have mistaken this for complaining; this is not the case.

In the previous post I allowed my own world view ("TV has a devastating effect on early childhood development") to interfere with my judgement. I allowed my own personal bias against TV as a shaping force in writing the piece.

I'd like to maintain that I never once supposed that the study was correct, however it led me down a train of investigation that may have implied I did.

Looking back, I can see I fell for what almost seems the (perhaps even unintentional) point of the study; To provide people like me with material to support their worldview.

So, let's start again;

• Does TV in early childhood affect development?
• How would we be able to tell?
• What was the motivation of the people writing the study?
• Were there any preconceived hypotheses?
• Given that the report will either be wholeheartedly agreed with, or wholeheartedly dismissed, what use does it have, aside from propping up existing worldviews?
• What effect would the report have if read by the uninformed or uninterested?
  

This last point is an important one, as reports such as these only ever make it to popular conversation through a headline. Leaving aside issues of whether these reports are designed solely to produce an eye-catching headline, we now have two ways for people to interact with the report;
1) Through a headline, sound bite, or hearsay
2) Through reading the report directly
It is an obvious, yet important point that interaction through the first method will far outweigh the second, such that the number of people that actually read the report is proportionally insignificant. Taking the next logical step, what then is the point of writing the report in the first place? Surely we can just publish a headline, as this is all most people read?

Unfortunately, no. Even though our "actual report readers" are a small minority, they are the gatekeepers and filters of information for the rest of us. We trust a doctor to filter information from the drug companies, we trust sites like webjet.com to filter prices from airlines, and we trust academics to filter information from research papers.

So if you're writing for publication, bear two things in mind;

1. It will most likely first have to pass inspection by someone fairly intelligent before it is trusted, and
2. It needs a good headline.

Bad Advice.

I recently stumbled across a page entitled "12 Tips for Creating Better Presentations," composed by a "Document Production Expert" at Microsoft.

What amazes me is not the banality of some of the tips, but how they focus on almost entirely the wrong things. Autolayouts? Autocorrect options? Not only do their "before" and "after" shots look almost identical, they are all terrible slides filled with paragraphs of 8-point writing.

And the worst part? My manager will read this page and think that this is what is meant by "Good Powerpoint".

Is bad advice better than no advice?

Autism, TV, and Early Childhood Development.

A research paper has just been published by Cornell University entitled "Does Television Cause Autism?".

The results of scientific research often bear out our intuitive understanding of a situation. Unfortunately, many people often need a giant slap in the face to realise it.

For years few people would have argued with the effect of reduced socialisation in the development of children, an effect which is exacerbated in those susceptible to autism. Any time spent in front of the TV takes away from opportunities to socialise, and promotes non-interactive behaviour. This may be unhealthy for a normal child, but it is devastating for the autistic.

The plural of anecdote may not be data, but I have watched my autistic nephew raised in front of the TV from day one. I'm not talking about the occasional time out, I'm talking about all day, every day, spent in front of the TV. Instead of going to the park. Instead of playing with other kids. Instead of going to daycare. Instead of reading. Instead of playing with toys. Instead of drawing. At least eight to ten hours in front of the TV, every day.

Though they are a welfare family, they refused to aknowledge their son's autism until far too late. The child is now nine years old, and has shown marked improvement since he started attending a special needs school - he can now speak some words, socialises far more enthusiastically, and makes ever more confident attempts to communicate through body language, sounds and actions. Needless to say, his transformation began as soon as he started attending school, and stopped watching so much TV. Though his improvement continues, I harbor great concern that the early damage was permanent.

I tell this story not to draw sympathy, but to illustrate a simple point; Intelligent people know that television has an adverse effect on development, unfortunately too many people wait until "scientists" say so before they believe it. One may assert that we have evolved to identify and react to immediate dangers, and long-term dangers tend to elude us. I respectfully disagree.

I don't care whether or not there is a "statistically significant causal link". Call me irrational, but I sincerely believe that most people can recognise unhealthy behaviour. Whether or not they choose to believe their instincts - or act on them - is another question entirely.

I have noted a disturbing tendency to take a lack of "scientific proof" for any specific behaviour as implicit endorsement of the behaviour as "not unhealthy". Not exercising is bad? where's the proof? Smoking? Fast food? Fossil fuels? Does anybody honestly believe these things are good? We justify instinctively unhealthy behaviour with a "lack of scientific evidence".

We have the opportunity now to be healthier than at any other point in history. It's a shame we don't take it.

[ADDENDUM:]

To clarify, my point is this: Socialisation is a key part of early childhood development.

I do not suppose that television itself causes any specific "damage", rather that TV time takes away from socialisation time. In extreme cases - such as the one I describe - it takes away from it entirely. Watching TV is almost entirely a passive experience. This is not a good thing for a child's development, autistic or otherwise.

The "damage" I refer to is the lack of opportunity for early development. Part of reaching your potential is being given the right opportunities at an early enough age. As an example, a great deal of research has shown that if a child is not given the opportunity to learn to speak (grammatically) by around the age of seven, then they will never learn at all. Too much time in front of the TV takes away from the opportunity for this development.

[ADDENDUM 2]:

We have done an excellent job of extending our livespan, though we have come close to picking all of the low hanging fruit. (On a side note, a great deal of past statistics regarding average lifespan were skewed by high infant mortality rates.)

I'm talking about taking advantage of the opportunity to be healthier, not just healthy. Look around; There are those that get by - the healthy - and there are those that exercise, eat right, exercise their minds, and do all they can to ensure their physical and mental health. We have a greater opportunity for this than at any other point in history, why are so few people taking advantage of it?

Bad Form.

I just received a fairly obvious form letter from a site that managed to acquire some of my personal information;

Dear Sean,

I notice your birthday is coming up on 1 October 2006.

How's that for destroying a sentence? Read it out loud just to accentuate the absurdity. Imagine calling up a friend and saying "Hey Bob, I just remembered that your birthday is coming up next 2 JULY 2007." You'd probably get some odd looks.

Being casual can be a great way of initiating a conversation with a prospect - if it's sincere. If there's a pitch, then make it honestly. If you're going to wish someone a happy birthday, then make it seem genuine. It doesn't help when the email ends with;

P.S. If 1 October 1980 is not your birthday, please change this information in your profile.

If you have so little faith in the information in my profile then why bother using it at all? The information obviously came from me, so if I gave you false details then I probably had a good reason for doing so.

All you need to do is remember that there's an actual person on the other end of the line, and treat them appropriately. Easy, no?