not only have you still not read the actual published study but you are now attempting to deny your own words. you attack the study and it's authors repeatedly, yet you claim not to agree or disagree with the conclusions of the study. i can't even imagine how that works. obviously you didn't actually read my last response or the other news articles either, but you did key in on a word that i used (i.e. sensationalized). the study does not have a sensational title, nor does it make a sensational claim, never did. you associated the title that the original poster used and the title of the original news article with what you believed to be the claims made by the study, then based your entire debate solely on that and the erroneous notion that it was a flawed clinical trial. your entire argument has been guided not by facts or actual knowledge but by your knee jerk reaction to what you view as a preposterous notion.
that and your previous responses are the evidence that leads me to the conclusions i stated above. you state that you lack the education to attack the actual published study yet you attack the validity of the study based on the opinion of a representative of the spongbob show, who is no more a scientist than you or i? throughout this discussion your attacks have been all over the the place with no substance to back them. mistake after mistake after mistake in spite of the clues and evidence that i posted to guide you to a more reasonable and educated opinion. not only that but you have yet to present any scientific evidence that contradicts not only the news article but the study itself. don't bother looking, i already did and the study is new enough no one has had the opportunity to conduct any research that contradicts the conclusions.
the title of the study is - IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TELEVISION ON YOUNG CHILDRENS EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
the study does not say, that is to say not, as in it does not even hint to the conclusion - spongebob makes kids stupid
here is the link to the published study in pdf format:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/09/08/peds.2010-1919.full.pdf+html?sid=c569ca32-04f9-4066-8755-274c692fdcec
if you have a point other than spongebob does not make kids stupid, please enlighten me. as to simarils point i believe you misinterpreted it. however, as to how simarils point relates to the actual study conducted by dr. lillard, it doesn't. once you read the actual study you will see it. in as far as the results of the study go, there was a definitive correlation between 9 minutes of spongebob being the cause of a measurable short term loss of executive function in the pre-school aged children that were studied. there were three groups of children from middle class and upper middle class homes that did one of three things, read books, watched public broadcasting system programs and watched episodes of spongebob squarpants. as to your argument that the study groups were not diverse enough would only be valid if the study actually made the conclusions that you believed the authors were making. keep in mind that statistically, low income households may not have access to the channel that spongebob squarepants is broadcast on due to financial constraints, not to mention the myriad health and behavioral issues experienced by the children in low income households. on the flip side, rich people tend to ban their children from watching such programming and generally have assistance in the form of nannies to raise thier children with strict guidelines.
*edit* thinking back to your argument that dr. lillard is not an expert or the only expert in her field in spite of her credentials, it just dawned on me that i have been erroneously making the assumption that you know medical and scientific research studies are subject to peer review prior to publication. that means, other people in the field of psychology reviewed the research prior to it being published and, the fact that it was published shows that those who were part of the peer review found no fault in it.
I messed up badly with the attacks on its methodology. They were poorly constructed and I kept referencing the wrong article (see
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/watching-spongebob-can-lead-to-learning-problems/). I must have been unwilling to admit that I was wrong, and selectively read it. That was a big mistake. So close, but yet so far. Well played, Gyrene.
Attacks on credentials? Hardly. I said that Christakis was well qualified to make the commentary and that Lillard was also well qualified (though it had been a long time since she had studied the effects of television, and her opinion would be better used elsewhere). The comment 'what kind of physician would release such inconclusive and misleading results?' was apt- Mr. Christakis was not that kind of physician. In fact, I said that he was well respected,
Why would such a respected psychologist...
I did take a cheap shot with that last sentence, though.
I should have thought about the peer-review process earlier, though. It sets my mind at ease knowing that an independent body reviewed it before release. However, good study, bad study, or in between study, for shame, FOX news! My comment on the perversion of clinical medicine and academic rigor still stands. The author of the news article used a misleading title, and the overall presentation alluded to there being a connection between fast-paced programming and learning problems.
To that end, the author compeletly misused the study. It had nothing to do with "learning difficulties"- it was a study of executive function. It would be a stretch to say that a child with temporarily impaired executive function had "learning difficulties". It might have trouble not cracking a joke or doing its classwork for a while, but there needs to be further research to find if the effects last any longer.
-Penguin
