6 Shocking Ways TV Rewires Your Brain
The average American watches more than four hours of television per day (five times the amount dedicated to socialization!). It makes sense that it would change us, the same as doing anything for four hours a day changes you. Yet, it's surprisingly hard to get people to accept this.
But the science is pretty much overwhelming. Enough television rewires your brain in a bunch of unexpected ways. For instance ...

It's easy to assume that impressionable children can be affected by TV shows, but what about toddlers? They aren't even aware of what's going on around them. Besides, they don't do a whole lot besides chew on furniture and inflate their diapers, so it's not like they could be doing something better with their time.

Like curing AIDS with crocs on.
Scientists tracked more than 1,000 29-month-old babies and their television habits and the effects of excess TV were downright startling -- even after researchers accounted for all the other factors that would explain differences in behavior. The more television a child watched as a toddler, the more likely it was that he'd be fat, bullied, bad at math, inactive and prone to misbehavior in the classroom.
Again, that's not a result of watching violent TV shows or anything else that would encourage them to do bad things. Not that a 3-year-old would be able to absorb those lessons anyway.

"Little Jimmy does love his Oz reruns!"
Nope, it's just the act of watching television. And again, it's not just that the type of parent who plants a kid in front of a TV all day probably also runs a bad household -- the results hold up even if you account for all other factors in the kids' upbringing.
And the research holds up around the world. A New Zealand study found that more hours of television viewed as a toddler led to a higher probability of dropping out of school later in life. In a stunning display of initiative, France has even banned shows from having children younger than 3 as their target audience, because French adults are the only ones allowed to have their intelligences insulted.

We bet this show is legal in France.
And while we're on the subject, let's get this one out of the way ...

Since television -- especially children's TV -- is lightning-fast and loaded with stimuli, it isn't outlandish to think that a person's brain might become adjusted to that pace over time. When a teacher cannot supplement his or her lectures with dinosaurs and explosions, a child's television-altered attention span may be so deprived that the child cannot stay focused.

"Now kids, to help us learn about the pyramids, Christian Bale
is going to come in and run over a history book with the Batmobile."
But most of us who don't buy into "the modern world is destroying the children!" alarmism have trouble believing that too much TV can actually rewire your attention span in any significant way.
But an Iowa State University study sure enough found that students who stare at a screen for more than two hours per day are twice as likely to be diagnosed with attention problems, which is awesome when you consider that the average amount of time a child spends watching television and playing video games is 4.26 hours a day.

They'd at least have to go outside to buy drugs.
The study followed 1,323 children in grades three through five and 210 college students. The results make it fairly hard to argue that television doesn't literally change the way the human brain functions, with enough exposure. But even stranger, other studies have shown (just like with the example above) that the amount of television watched as an infant can affect attention habits later in life.
So again, if you want your kids to be able to pay attention to anything for longer than 38 seconds, you need to move into a hotel and wheel the television out onto the balcony like Craig T. Nelson in Poltergeist.
Television can change your dreams, and not just by making you wish you could master time travel to become an advertising executive in the 60s.

"The time machine is in my pants."
According to science, television can alter your actual dreams, the kind that happen while you're asleep. Research has found that some people have monochrome dreams (that is, they dream in black and white), and it's apparently all their televisions' fault.

"Tonight you'll be playing badminton on a pirate ship in magnificent shades of gray!"
In a study of 50 people, half under 25 and the rest over 55, the subjects filled out a questionnaire related to the color of their dreams, their contentedness with their marriages and the colors of their televisions in their formative childhood years. Then the subjects were asked to keep a dream diary. Researchers found that while hardly any of the younger people dreamed in black and white (around four percent), a quarter of the older-than-55 group did. That is, the people who grew up with black and white televisions.

Artist's depiction of every male over 55.
Scientists attribute this to hours of exposure to black and white images during the subjects' formative years, but there is no way to know if the actual dreams were in black and white, or if the subjects just remember them as such due to years of visual training by their TV sets.
It's pretty weird either way.








Yay! TV is evil! I will stay with Internet! Web knows best! web knows best!! YAY! I'm safe as long as I'm with cracked!
ReplyI wonder what a similar study would say about internet use
ReplyOh, and psst, guys, read the last paragraph of the article. It specifically responds to all the people saying "yeah, but I watched a ton of TV and I'm not like that.". The article is so prepared for you it already has a preemptive response ready to go.
ReplyWait, it makes kids inactive AND misbehave in the classroom? Goodness, inactivity is usually what's required in the classroom. TV must be truly evil in order to only trigger activity when it's inappropriate.
ReplyAnd up there in the one study it also includes video games. What does all this extend to then? In my case I hate television , but I spend plenty of time on the computer...eh, I actually just hate the large majority of television. Some stations like history, or national geographic, or animal planet/discovery (even though those two are starting to phase out their normal programming and are replacing it with as much stupid, overly dramatic, unrealistic bullshit as they possibly can in a desperate attempt to grab 'normal' viewers attention) aren't so bad. Unfortunately it seems anymore there are very few stations that contain programming that doesn't make your brain turn to mush and dribble out your ears, and as I said even they are slowly morphing into the same shallow, money obsessed, garbage peddling piles of s**t that occupy every other channel.
But anyways, videogames, at least in my mind, are fairly significantly different from television. And if videogames are included does that mean computers are included? Is that only if you're playing games on the computer? Are we just lumping every sort of game together here? Because really I get the feeling the sort of game one is playing would have some bearing on what effects it has on one's attention span. There are some games that require a lot of patience and attention to detail. Speaking of which, was the type of programming kids were watching taken into account?
I don't know, it's just that a lot of these statements are pretty definitive when "television and games" is a pretty broad category. Of course it's not like it takes studies to realize that watching the sort of stuff that's on television doesn't do any services for one's mental well being.
I'm 19 and I watch A LOT of television, way too much I know but it makes me happy and I am neither fat nor violet. I'm not violent at all in fact, I'm a very polite and passive person. Despite all the TV I watch though I also read a lot, enjoy writing and like calming myself down with sketching and painting. ...I also want to be an actress one day, which may be a factor from (or to) my fascination with movies and television.
ReplyIn a nutshell, I don't agree with a numerous points made as I am and know of frequent TV watchers who do not have such issues... But I also know a few who do, which makes me agree with SOME.
All in all, I believe it's how you're raised that determines this type of out come. When I see someone get punched in the face I don't think "Hey, I WANNA f*****g PUNCH SOMEONE IN THE FACE!" I go "Ow, that looked like it hurt, hope no one ever punches me in the face."
Saying such things COULD make you violent or fat, or ADD is okay but saying they WILL is a little over the top.
"...will no doubt yield many of you (and some in our comment section) to say, "But I watched the s**t out of television when I was a kid, and I turned out fine!" That is no doubt true, and by the way, it conflicts in no way with any of these studies. They're not saying TV ruins 100 percent of the kids it touches. Just that you're more likely to have problems if you watch a ton of TV."
...
I think you missed that part of the article.
Surprisingly they dont say reading books makes you fat, In fact you can't read a book while sprinting on a treadmill, but you can watch TV. I just hate the snobbery.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesReading comprehension isn't your thing, is it Lucas?
Actually, I can see how reading would burn more calories than watching TV... Your brain is using more fuel essentially; it's probably a lot more active than when you're watching TV. I'm just floating a bullshit guess though. There could also be a correlation between people who read and their activity level in general - perhaps they typically walk more on average or something.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure what they're saying has nothing to do with the amount of calories one is burning during the actual activity.
As a matter of fact, they make the statement that people (or children I guess) that watch more television are MORE LIKELY, again, MORE LIKELY to be fat, bullied, inactive, misbehave in the classroom and etc. More likely would mean there is a correlation between a child watching more television and those things. They don't say anywhere that the literal act of watching television is what makes you fat. They're saying kids who are fatter tend to watch more television, or vice versa, which is not an outlandish statement by any stretch of the imagination. Regardless of the reason they're fat, they have the fact that they all watch more television in common. Yeah, people CAN watch TV while sprinting on a treadmill, but that doesn't mean that's what most people are doing while watching TV. Again, it does not matter what is making them fat in this scenario, we just know that the fat individuals in question tend to watch a greater amount of television.
Maybe you consider it 'snobbery' because you're plainly demonstrating that you don't understand the very basic ideas they're presenting here. Really it shouldn't even need explaining...
Any chance you watch a lot of television? (lol, sorry, had to say it)
I was also confused as to which case you were talking about at first, but regardless of which one they all involve correlation, or the fact that people who do ___ tend to ____. There aren't any definitives, other than the headings which are just there as an intro, and can't really go into much detail. Maybe saying "it might make you fat" would be better, but still. And as for reading vs. watching TV the television is just meant to give you a stimulus to pay attention to other than being tired, if someone actually wanted to watch tv a lot of times they're probably going to sit down and watch TV. Kind of like you could read a book on a treadmill and get about as much info out of it as watching a television show, only it would be less distracting, and distraction is the point.
And no, they don't say reading books makes you fat, because that's not what the studies are suggesting. They're reporting linked studies here. If the study said "based upon our findings, reading books makes you fat", then they could say reading books makes you fat, now couldn't they? (I'm kind of hoping they don't say that anywhere, because I didn't search them in depth, but I'm pretty sure they don't)
No matter what, what they're saying isn't complicated, nor does it sound all that snobbish. It mostly sounds like they're commenting on scientific studies. If citing findings, studies and facts is 'snobbery' to you, then I'd sure like to know what occupation you have. Anything short of being a clown, a reality show star or maybe a politician involves lots of facts and findings, so I don't know how one couldn't be used to em' after any stretch of time in the world.
"Now kids, to help us learn about the pyramids, Christian Bale
Replyis going to come in and run over a history book with the Batmobile."
I'm more sad about the fact that this will never actually happen.
about tv influencing dreams.. have any of you dreamed of actually being in the tv show you've just viewed? it happens all the time to me. If I watch say.. 2 or 3 episodes of any show in one day then 8 out of 10 times when i go to sleep that night I dream I am in that show.. interacting with the characters.. sometimes after I wake up and try to analyze the dream it doesn't make sense (like most dreams I guess) but sometimes they're so elaborate that you could probably make a pretty good episode based on it
ReplyI wonder if #1 also applies to self esteem and stress because i know my brother used to watch a lot of televison and he literally is the shortest fused hot headed person I have ever known.
Replyi dont belive ive ever had a monochrome dream before but i know i've have many dreams where a character was monochrome.
ReplyI have had monochrome dreams before, but I think it's because I grew up watching a lot of Mystery Science Theatre!
ReplyCorrelation does not prove causation. There's a tendency to assume that if you assume one thing causes another and you find a correlation in a study, it proves the causation.
ReplyIt's entirely possible that people with short attention spans are more likely to engage in excess TV watching. The same is true for the last one (violent individuals enjoying watching violence on TV).
Just... pointing that out.
I'm goona assert that someone watching many Shakespeare murders will be less violent than a wrestling fan who views no murders. Most of the kids into wrestling when I was a kid were violent douchebags just learning to refine their pain infliction techniques. Why couldn't Al Qaeda take out the WWE instead?
@Lucas73, that may be true but does not complete an argument, maybe instead of wrestling creating violent douchebags, violent douchebags are drawn towards programming like that? I really doubt that they would be more interested in Shakespeare than WWE. Lets put this into another light, Socrates is man, all men are mortal thus Socrates is mortal, that argument sounds logical. However we cannot argue that, My hamster is a mortal, all men are mortal, thus My hamster is a man. just because A is a large subset of B does not make B a subset of A. Hopefully i'm not mixing this all up.
i only watch football games and the championships of other sports on TV. otherwise, i choose to surf the internet. hulu, youtube, the comedy channel, stuff like that. tv is poisonous.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesBut.. Isn't that the same thing? The only difference is the medium you watch the shows on..
Uh, that's pretty much the same damn thing. Only difference is your attention span is likely even worse, because instant gratification.
Wow. He was joking guys!
Man, I am glad you wrote that last paragraph.
ReplyThis is why I only watch House.
ReplyWho needs TV when you have Internet?
ReplyI've never understood this business about dreaming in colour or black-and-white. It's a dream - stuff just is. There is no image for me (not that I don't know what the things in my dreams look like - I do, but the knowledge isn't somehow tied to my perspective).
ReplyAfter I make a witty comment I have this brief feeling of disappointment when there's no cymbal crash or laugh track. Sure, I sometimes get the odd real chuckle, but that's not a full audience damnit.
ReplyWould it be weird if I carried one in my Mp3 player and played it on small speakers at the appropriate moments?
You might do better to buy one of those novelty sound effect keychains and use that instead, simply because pressing the "rimshot" button is much quicker than navigating through the menus of your music player.
It's weird when you dream something and then wake up and realize that most of it was the TV show that was playing.
ReplyIn fairness the Tool Time girl was 1990's Pam f*****g Anderson. And yes. She loved me back.
Reply