Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.

October 16, 2006 7:07 PM

Does television cause autism?A statistical study by two professors at Cornell appears to find a correlation between autism and toddlers watching television.
posted by winston (72 comments total)

oday, Cornell University researchers are reporting what appears to be a statistically significant relationship between autism rates and television watching by children under the age of 3.

Wait for all the people to come in clamoring about how Correlation != Causation.

Because, you know, those babies who are more likely to have autism just like TV more!

It always seemed like a bad idea to me, I'd never let my kids (if I had any) watch TV until they were at least five or six (and even then, not very much)
posted by delmoi at 7:17 PM on October 16, 2006

Because, you know, those babies who are more likely to have autism just like TV more!

More like: parents who are likely to have autistic kids are more likely to live in regions where more kids watch TV.
posted by winston at 7:18 PM on October 16, 2006

Wow. I buy it. One more reason to get rid of (or really limit) tv watching.
posted by arcticwoman at 7:19 PM on October 16, 2006

He found what appears to be a dramatic relationship between television viewing and autism onset. In counties or years when rain and snow were unusually high, and hence it is assumed children spent a lot of time watching television, autism rates shot up; in places or years of low precipitation, autism rates were low. Waldman and Nicholson conclude that "just under 40 percent of autism diagnoses in the three states studied is the result of television watching."

Hmm, that's a huge leap though, it's possible that it could also be caused just by being indoors more often.
posted by delmoi at 7:20 PM on October 16, 2006

Are there a lot of toddlers who don't watch television? It looks like the study is just encountering the baseline distribution that would occur within what (I think) would be a solid majority—ie, the television-watching kids—of their pool of possible samples.
posted by Yeomans at 7:21 PM on October 16, 2006

err...damn you Delmoi!! :-)
posted by Yeomans at 7:23 PM on October 16, 2006

Yes, delmoi, that is one option. And the article mentions it, too.
posted by oddman at 7:23 PM on October 16, 2006

Wait for all the people to come in clamoring about how Correlation != Causation.

Okay, I'll bite, because, in fact, correlation does not equal causation. Of course, your 'rebuttal' to this well-known point doesn't address statistical issues, it merely implies that one possible counter argument is readily dismissed as absurd.

I don't know all that much about autism, and, not having read the paper yet, it seems plausible that autistic kids do indeed like watching TV more. A priori, it makes no more or less sense than claiming that watching TV causes autism.

At any rate, if the authors of the paper do a good job establishing a causal relationship, I can guarantee that the statistics are only part of the story.
posted by noahpoah at 7:26 PM on October 16, 2006

Are there a lot of toddlers who don't watch television?

The main finding of the study is this: The rate of toddlers watching television increased dramatically when cable and VCRs became common. The rate of autism increased dramatically at the same time. In places where cable television became common earlier, the rate of autism became common earlier.
posted by winston at 7:28 PM on October 16, 2006

oops. The rate of autism increased earlier
posted by winston at 7:29 PM on October 16, 2006

Tomorrow will not be a good day to be Jim Janicek. Or anyone who's invested in the company that makes those baby DVDs.

The rationale behind the study--that watching 2-D animation instead of interacting with the real world--feels right. It feels right in a way that the other things accused of causing autism, especially the vaccines, never quite did. But how do you get from establishing a correlation in this case to proving that TV is a cause? It's not like you can do double blind studies with kids and see who becomes autistic and who doesn't. Aren't these correlative studies the best we can get?
posted by thecaddy at 7:31 PM on October 16, 2006

They found that as cable television became common in California and Pennsylvania beginning around 1980, childhood autism rose more in the counties that had cable than in the counties that did not.

I'm not going to rule out TV watching as I think there could be something there, but I'd be curious what other things could be correlated to these same counties during these same years. The first counties in the country with cable were more urban than rural right? How about EPA regulations? New food on the market? Increase in use of heat pumps?
posted by pwb503 at 7:32 PM on October 16, 2006

"I wondered if exposing toddlers to lots of colorful two-dimensional stimulation could be harmful to brain development."

Then the solution is easy: Build a crib out of LCD TV sets. With screens in four directions the little pink parasite gets all the 3-D stimulation it needs to get a good job and keep dear old Dad out of public senior care.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:36 PM on October 16, 2006

I've noticed a correlation between lowered cognitive brain function and viewing Fox News, but I'm not sure which is the cause and which is the effect.
posted by spock at 7:36 PM on October 16, 2006

One in twenty randomly-selected signals will correlate with the rise in autism. The article already suggested that (some of) the researchers originally went after vaccines then abandoned that when the statistics didn't work out for them. This reminds me of a study once that concluded that exposure to EMF caused suicide. They had found that electrical utility workers had a significantly higher suicide rate. Then, like in this article, they came up with a post-hoc hypothesis that "felt right" to explain this fact. And just as in this article, there was another rabbit that they were originally hunting (almost certainly, they wanted these utility workers to have higher cancer rates).
posted by Humanzee at 7:36 PM on October 16, 2006

Yeah, and the incidence of spousal abuse rises during Super Bowl Sunday.
posted by Falconetti at 7:37 PM on October 16, 2006

My own family has (admittedly highly anecdotal) evidence to support this theory. My niece was allowed to sit in front of a screen for many hours a day when she was very young, less than 3. By 5 she was totally off in her own world, not interested in other kids or able to handle her emotions. She was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome (a mild form of autism). Her parents threw out their TV and got her in a good program at school, and after years of hard work she totally turned into a happy normal kid.

Would be great to use some control populations (Amish, people in poor countries without TV, separated twins) to really look closer.
posted by brendan66 at 7:41 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

They found that as cable television became common in California and Pennsylvania beginning around 1980, childhood autism rose more in the counties that had cable than in the counties that did not.

could it be that people who are more affluent and more intelligent are more likely to get cable tv before the less affluent and less intelligent? ... in fact, isn't it likely that people who have their kids watch things like teletubbies and nick jr and kiddie computer games are more affluent and more intelligent?

and hasn't there already been a suspected correlation between more intelligent parents (and often more affluent ones) and more autistic offspring? ... (in fact, how would this study explain that autism often seems to run in families? ... is it because these families watch tv more?)

Although there is very little hard evidence on the subject, many believe that, due to the growth of cable television, VCRs, and DVDs, television watching by very young children has grown dramatically over the last few decades

-- page 3 of the study

i'm sorry, but they have to do better than that ... "many believe" is not good enough
posted by pyramid termite at 7:42 PM on October 16, 2006

Okay, I'll bite, because, in fact, correlation does not equal causation. Of course, your 'rebuttal' to this well-known point doesn't address statistical issues, it merely implies that one possible counter argument is readily dismissed as absurd.

Because it is absurd. Toddlers and infants don't really control the amount of TV that they watch. If there is a temporal distance between to things, and there is a correlation, then, the earlier thing is probably the cause. The only other option is a third thing causing both. But what could the third thing be in this case? Somehow parents more likely to have autistic kids are also more likely let those kids watch TV? That just seems like a strange argument to make. It's a possibility, but I think it's a very minor possibility.

It's not like you can do double blind studies with kids and see who becomes autistic and who doesn't. Aren't these correlative studies the best we can get?

Actually you kind of can. Just get parents to record the amount of television that their kids watch. You would need tens of thousands of parents to do this, but studies like this are done all the time.

That said, it is possible that the results are just wrong and it's a phantom correlation caused by random chance.
posted by delmoi at 7:45 PM on October 16, 2006

I'm still thinking about this study.
Old Sperm + Tinky Winky = Rain Man?
posted by turducken at 7:51 PM on October 16, 2006

I would be more apt to believe that increased television may cause kids genetically disposed to develop autism to do so. There's way too many kids who watch television all the time for this effect to be more self-apparent.
posted by geoff. at 8:02 PM on October 16, 2006

hey, check this out. apparently, a mutation in the MET gene increases the risk of autism as well. i'd feel alot more comfortable blaming Barney, though.
posted by the painkiller at 8:02 PM on October 16, 2006

"Somehow parents more likely to have autistic kids are also more likely let those kids watch TV?"

How about parents of children beginning to express autistic symptoms may be more likely to let them watch TV because they don't play well with others?
posted by solotoro at 8:05 PM on October 16, 2006

tv? come on guys? what about the effects of playing pool or eating penny candy while riding giant one-wheeled bikes?

I think "myspace causes autism" is what you're looking for for your next bit of publicity-seeking psuedo-science.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:06 PM on October 16, 2006

also: I think solotoro nailed it.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:07 PM on October 16, 2006

"isn't it likely that people who have their kids watch things like teletubbies and nick jr and kiddie computer games are more affluent and more intelligent?"

More affluent maybe, or they have credit cards; more intelligent no, smart people are less likely to park them in from of a TV. Maybe you mean "middle class" instead?

It could be that there's something brain-warping about radiation from cathode ray tubes but I can't think of a way to study it. Maybe distribute LCD TVs and computer monitors to kids and see if they get less autism than those with CRTs?

I have noticed a lot of "weirdos" of all ages watch a lot of TV, though. What did oddballs do before radio, movies, TV or even widespread literacy?

Anyway, many feel that SENDING ME MONEY would enable me to get out more and thereby cause a decline in my Metafilter use. It's even testable!
posted by davy at 8:08 PM on October 16, 2006

There's an age limit? That's why so many of us have switched to MetaFilter: on TV, all you can do is lurk.
posted by cenoxo at 8:10 PM on October 16, 2006

More affluent maybe, or they have credit cards; more intelligent no, smart people are less likely to park them in from of a TV.

you're assuming that people with cable tv are more likely to park their kids in front of a tv set

i suggest you read this article in wired ... written by mefi's own digaman, who perhaps will join in on this ...

it's my view that autism and what could be causing it are very complex subjects ... and both the condition and the causes have subjective elements
posted by pyramid termite at 8:18 PM on October 16, 2006

Beware the ecological fallacy, of which this study seems a v. good example: "The ecological fallacy is a widely recognised error in the interpretation of statistical data, whereby inferences about the nature of individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong. This fallacy assumes that all members of a group exhibit characteristics of the group at large."
posted by docgonzo at 8:20 PM on October 16, 2006

Oh, and what are three economists/management profs doing writing on epidemiology? Might that be one reason this paper has not been published or gone through peer review?
posted by docgonzo at 8:23 PM on October 16, 2006

i thought watching television caused obesity.
posted by brandz at 8:24 PM on October 16, 2006

What about computers? They started around 1980 also. Perhaps there is a statistical correlation with computer usage and ear infections.
posted by stbalbach at 8:24 PM on October 16, 2006

I've only got this one data point, but the study's authors invoke 'common knowledge' too liberally for me (the most people believe lead-in they throw around, for example):

My brother watched TV, on a CRT, constantly when we were growing up. I never watched TV. Never never never. He's the normal one; I ended up with Asperger's. Go figure.

And we're identical twins, too. Weird, no?
posted by Yeomans at 8:27 PM on October 16, 2006

The rate of autism increased dramatically

Or, more accurately, the rate of diagnosed autism. Much like ADHD, or, hell, child abuse, I suspect, strongly, that it's the diagnoses that are rising, not the actual rate of incidence. Affluent areas tend to have more psychologists capable of diagnosing autism, yes? Cable TV entered affluent neighborhoods earlier than it did poorer ones, didn't it?
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:29 PM on October 16, 2006

The connection seems far too weak, and comparison with low-TV cultures such as India far too sparse, to accept causation. However, TV-watching exacerbating mild autism seems entirely reasonable to me.

In more extreme autism the sufferer is as uninterested in TV as in any other aspect of his (or rarely, her) environment.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:29 PM on October 16, 2006

But if it turns out television has specific harmful medical effects... Legal liability may come into play. And we live in a society in which bright images on screens are becoming ever more ubiquitous...

Televisions in waiting rooms makes me want to kill myself. There's nothing worse than being trapped waiting for a plane or doctor or a hamburger and not even be able enjoy your own thoughts or a conversation with a real person. Bring on the tv/autism hub-bub, something good might come of it.
posted by peeedro at 8:32 PM on October 16, 2006

OK, my problem with it?

The Cornell study is by Waldman, a professor in the school's Johnson Graduate School of Management, Sean Nicholson, an associate professor in the school's department of policy analysis, and research assistant Nodir Adilov.

Neither of them has a degree in medicine or public health.

OTOH, you have this book on kids and TV written by a ped and an MPH that seems to be more balanced.

(Disclosure: I did a podcast with them earlier this year.)
posted by dw at 8:47 PM on October 16, 2006

"This fallacy assumes that all members of a group exhibit characteristics of the group at large."

Such as "Mefites are white suburban-raised pretentious hipsters with multiple tattoos and piercings who think video games and science fiction are the highest forms of art"?
posted by davy at 9:02 PM on October 16, 2006

I'd never let my kids (if I had any) watch TV until they were at least five or six

Yes, you obviously don't have kids. If you could actually raise a child for six years without once ever resorting to the electric babysitter, well then you are a better man (or woman) than I.
posted by fungible at 9:12 PM on October 16, 2006

Yeah, and I bet he'll make all his own baby food and never, ever take them to McDonald's.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:14 PM on October 16, 2006

Neither of them has a degree in medicine or public health.

I think in some cases an economist or statistician would be in a better position to draw these sorts of conclusions from data sets.

After all, would you need a degree in engineering to examine statistics of earthquakes and building collapses to draw the conclusion that one causes the other?

Would you need a degree in education or meteorology to conclude (based on statisical evidence) that colder climates have more school closings due to inclement weather?
posted by bashos_frog at 9:25 PM on October 16, 2006

Cramer, K. M., & Jackson, D. L. (2006). Fans, Football and Federal Elections: A Real-World Example of Statistics. Teaching Statistics, 28, pp.56-57.

"This article evaluates and explores the correlation (+0.892) between the United States federal election winner and the most recent Washington Redskin home-game winner, a relation perfectly linked for 17 of 18 elections since franchise inception in 1936."
posted by Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson at 9:28 PM on October 16, 2006

I blame off-gassing of the foam in furniture. Or maybe the generation of parents were exposed to 80's metal. Or maybe the lack of lead paint in their diet. Or maybe the increased incidence of Starbucks franchises.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:29 PM on October 16, 2006

I would be very interested to see a study on whether the rise in autism correlates with the use of MSG in foods, or correlates with processed food intake. (nearly the same thing, these days.) TV is certainly a possible cause, but autism is such a profound and disabling disorder that I tend to prefer explanations that involve chemicals of some kind.

It doesn't seem like watching moving 2D images would cause problems that were that severe.

The correlation here, though, is striking... given this study, were I a parent, I'd not allow TV before age 5 in my home. I understand that it's not proof, and could be overruled, but it looks sufficiently likely to warrant taking action.
posted by Malor at 9:34 PM on October 16, 2006

Starbucks. I blame Starbucks.
posted by Yeomans at 9:35 PM on October 16, 2006

I read this article on Slate earlier today. First off, the author of the article (not the study), Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot and has no business writing about anything relating to science, ever. He's a global warming skeptic and a proponent of intelligent design.

Second, once I read they were using precipitation records to prove more TeeVee watching, I called bullshit and went and ate a turkey sandwich.

I know very little about autism, but this study seems highly flawed. Because of that, I'm sure every daily paper will be carrying this story this week. If it means more parents restrict television viewing from their youngsters, then that is probably a good thing.
posted by jefbla at 10:12 PM on October 16, 2006

Somebody could easily point out that during the rise of autism, thousands of new chemicals and viruses from imported pets and food began their path through the human world.
posted by Brian B. at 10:18 PM on October 16, 2006

it's the decrease in pirates ... it not only causes global warming, but it causes autism ...
posted by pyramid termite at 11:15 PM on October 16, 2006

OK, as far as I can see this study claims to establish a correlation on a county-by-county basis: counties with more cable TV allegedly have higher rates of autism.

Now one explanation of the rise in autism rates is that it is just much more commonly diagnosed: borderline cases and other mental illnesses are now more likely to be diagnosed as autism.

So one way the correlation might work is that counties that got cable TV earlier have doctors that are more likely to diagnose autism. Perhaps they are more prosperous, and their doctors are better-funded and more up-to-date. Or, it's cheaper to cable up a densely-populated area: their communities could be less isolated, and their doctors more in touch with the latest theories.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:21 PM on October 16, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

I've been playing my baby daughter full screen winamp visualizations along with her baby songs. I thought it was sweet how hypnotized she got by the imagery, until my wife pointed out that I might actually be doing her some damage. Sigh. Scratch one more daddy-daughter bonding activity off the list.
posted by jonson at 11:46 PM on October 16, 2006

pwb503: The first counties in the country with cable were more urban than rural right?

Wrong. Cable was developed originaly for folks living outside of broadcast TV areas. Whether this was enough to show anything of a statistical nature is another issue, and ultimately, may be irrelevant. But I saw my first cable TV about 1965, in a very rural location (Oscoda, Michigan), visiting family friends.

Given that wetter weather was used to make the supposition of more TV viewing, I'd like to point out that rain washes pollutants out of the atmosphere, down to the ground. Cold weather means less fresh air indoors.

Does the rise in autism also correlate with the rise of parental fears of child molestors, which led to the current craze of keeping kids locked up indoors, planning all their activities?
posted by Goofyy at 12:46 AM on October 17, 2006

that's a rediculous assertion.
posted by wumpus at 1:35 AM on October 17, 2006

My profoundly autistic son has always enjoyed watching more television than his non-autistic brother. He likes the controlled, limited arena of televisual experience — it's much more tightly contained than the real world. Best of all, he likes to replay videos, maximising his ability to predict and control events.

Autism is a pervasive condition: it affects all aspects of the cognitive process. Everything my son thinks is deeply coloured by his autism. Most neuro-typical adults (ie, non-autistics) find it impossible to empathise with how he perceives the world. Anyone who assumes autism can be triggered by flashing lights and electronic voices does not appreciate the immense complexity of the condition.

My son has been autistic since birth, by the way: his condition preceded any exposure to TV. That suggests to me that the study cited above has been interpreted backwards — autism is not caused by television, but autistic children like TV more than the average child might.
posted by MinPin at 3:42 AM on October 17, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

Not to minimize the seriousness of autism, but: I was once editing a piece (for TV! shockers!) about a couple with an autistic child, and the producer (who had no children) wanted to put in a soundbite about how the kid stared at the TV for hours. And I said, dude, they all do that if you let them.
posted by fungible at 5:31 AM on October 17, 2006

Yeah, and I bet he'll make all his own baby food and never, ever take them to McDonald's.

Okay, MrMoonPie, I'm not asking for any medals, and I'm certainly not declaring some sort of superiority over any other parents out there, but I can tell you that my wife and I did indeed make all our own baby food (it's just cooking, after all...) and have never, ever taken our daughter (who's now six) to a McDonald's. It can be done, and in fact, it ain't even that difficult.

As for TV, we've only done videos/DVDs, never any broadcast stuff: our antenna's been disconnected for the last 10 years or so. Our daughter's generally done no more than an hour or so per day in front of the screen. It just always seemed like common sense to us.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:45 AM on October 17, 2006

I blame myspace.
posted by srboisvert at 6:21 AM on October 17, 2006

Malor writes "I would be very interested to see a study on whether the rise in autism correlates with the use of MSG in foods"

MSG is very prevalent in home cooking in many Asian cuisines and cultures, and has been for some time. It's used both as a spice like any other, and in the unprocessed form present in various seaweeds etc. If you suspect a link with autism you might take a look at the epidemiology of autism in SE Asia for a start.
posted by OmieWise at 6:26 AM on October 17, 2006

Thank you minpin.

I smell scaremongering. If I hear it from someone who's an actual scientist, I'll pay attention. Otherwise, I have a hard time believing the idea that 2-D images cause brain damage without some explanation of why and how. It doesn't "feel right" to me because I don't have that odd snobbishness/fear about TV that some people seem to. TV's powers to Hurt Our Precious Children! have been wildly overrated for years. It ain't the TV that hurts kids who watch too much but **the fact that they're being neglected by their parents.** Before TV, neglectful parents would just lock kids out of the house or send them to work in the soap factory.

Show me some real science, and we'll talk. Otherwise, bugger off Easterbrook.
posted by emjaybee at 6:50 AM on October 17, 2006

emjaybee writes "Show me some real science, and we'll talk."

I'm not at all interested in defending this article or its hypothesis, but the tone of your point seems to miss the boat on how an awful lot of epidemiology is done. Epi is a pretty statistical science, and although there are people in labs (which I assume are the kinds of people you simplistically think of as 'real scientists") doing experiments involved in epi, statistical modeling is a big part of the game. Discounting such work as not reliable displays a profound misunderstanding of population studies in general. It's often work like this (and, again, I'm not trying to defend this article) which leads to the kinds of studies which you apparently reserve your understanding for.
posted by OmieWise at 7:03 AM on October 17, 2006

Omie (not to derail) I was not slamming all statistical studies...just this one, which, from the little we've seen, seems awfully vague, and does not seem to have a hard science backing (ie, we have evidence that suggests 2D images cause brain damage by X mechanism). Right now it looks more like a hypothesis, in which case, they should phrase it more tentatively (and maybe that's Easterbrook and not the researcher's fault here).

If there is some other studies/science out there that seems to back this up, the article doesn't mention it.

And as a parent, I get snippy about the way Threats To Our Precious Children studies pop up all the damn time and everyone freaks out and gives them lots of attention, without ever questioning the research itself, or putting it in any sort of context.
posted by emjaybee at 7:14 AM on October 17, 2006

emjaybee writes "I was not slamming all statistical studies...just this one, which, from the little we've seen, seems awfully vague"

Fair enough, I agree. Disregard my above comment, then.
posted by OmieWise at 7:31 AM on October 17, 2006

I beat my kids regularly so they don’t get autism OR watch tv.
S’true.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:46 AM on October 17, 2006

I think in some cases an economist or statistician would be in a better position to draw these sorts of conclusions from data sets.

No, not really. It doesn't seem like they looked for other possible causes and corrected for them in order to isolate the causation. If one of them had an MPH it's likely they'd have tried to correct for the issues.

After all, would you need a degree in engineering to examine statistics of earthquakes and building collapses to draw the conclusion that one causes the other?

No, but that's self-evident. Anyone who has ever been through an earthquake or seen the results can figure it out. You could even pull out Occam's Razor and figure that earthquakes are the best explanation, since giant space lizards were never seen playing volleyball in Kobe or around the 880.

A correlation between TV and autism is possible, but it doesn't show causation unless you can prove that it is a greater factor in autism than any other possible environmental vector, e.g. food additives, mercury, less spanking, high fructose corn syrup, increased/earlier diagnosis, etc. And they haven't proven that TV is a factor, much less is a cause. If they were going to do that, they'd need to survey parents of autistic kids over time, track their TV watching, then compare them against a control. Even then, you'd only prove that autistic kids watch more TV. What you need is a longitudinal study of kids from birth to track their habits and their childhood diseases. Some are underway now, but it will be a while before we have any good data.

And who are running these studies? Researchers with public health and medicine degrees.

Would you need a degree in education or meteorology to conclude (based on statisical evidence) that colder climates have more school closings due to inclement weather?

I'm not sure this is even true. If a school closes in Denver for 12" of snow and a school in Oklahoma City closes for 2" of snow, I'd bet they'd boh close the same amount. When I was in college in Boulder, the school closed twice in four years. In the five years I've been at UDub here in Seattle, the school has closed for snow... twice. The amounts were quite different, though.
posted by dw at 8:14 AM on October 17, 2006

These articles are why I stopped reading these articles.
posted by unknowncommand at 8:29 AM on October 17, 2006

Everyone here seems to be criticizing an imaginary strawman version of the paper. This imaginary version holds that a simple correlation implies causation of mental illness, that the authors do not understand statistical analysis because they are not professors of public health, and that the authors somehow don't understand science as well as some rubbernecks on Metafilter.

How about you go and read the study itself [pdf] before commenting?
posted by rxrfrx at 9:44 AM on October 17, 2006

fungible: Yes, you obviously don't have kids. If you could actually raise a child for six years without once ever resorting to the electric babysitter, well then you are a better man (or woman) than I.

It's not impossible. Our kids are 4 and 2, and they don't watch TV.

Of course it's inevitable that they'll start watching TV at some point; we just want to postpone that point as long as possible. Health effects aside, TV is so powerful and so engrossing that we figure once they start watching TV, all their other activities (reading books, drawing, playing with non-electronic toys) will seem boring by comparison.
posted by russilwvong at 3:04 PM on October 17, 2006

If this were true, autism should correlate with poverty in the U.S., because TV watching by the really young happens at the most intense rates amongst the truly poor-- the middle classes are the ones who try to limit TV (and have the liberty to use it less as a babysitter) amongst their kids. Middle and upper middle class parents are less likely to have the TV on 24/7.

I don't believe there is any such correlation by class; in fact, due to the seeking of diagnoses by the middle class (and the greater stigmatization of a mental retardation diagnosis as opposed to one of autism amongst such parents-- as well as the fact that researchers think many autistic kids were formerly misdiagnosed as retarded and this may account for some of the recent increase in prevalence), the correlation may go the other way.
posted by Maias at 7:46 PM on October 17, 2006

For those people who have suggested that it is the diagnosis of autism that has risen, not the actual rate of autism, please read the current Age of Autism article by Dan Olmstead over at UPI.

For the record: My son is severely autistic. His favorite thing to do is to watch video tapes. His symptoms of autism predated his discovery of video tapes by at least two years. As another parent said earlier in the thread, I think this article has it exactly backwards. My son watches tapes because he can control them. He knows exactly what will happen, and he can rewind and fast forward as often as he likes and will always be comforted by the familiar aspect of seeing the same things over and over.

He also enjoys swimming and roller skating, so no, he is not a shut-in couch potato.
posted by Lokheed at 7:54 PM on October 17, 2006

For the record: My son is severely autistic. His favorite thing to do is to watch video tapes.

yes ... my autistic daughter likes to do that too, for the same reasons
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 PM on October 17, 2006

russilwvong: You are a better man than I.

Not that I ever said its impossible, but damn is it hard. Sometimes you want to, you know, actually accomplish something and TV makes it so easy.

Still: my 4-year-old loves TV (which we limit, of course) but when he's not watching it, he still loves his books and toys and drawing things. Go figure.
posted by fungible at 10:17 PM on October 17, 2006

Still: my 4-year-old loves TV (which we limit, of course) but when he's not watching it, he still loves his books and toys and drawing things. Go figure.

Glad to hear it. When my kids do get a chance to watch TV (when they're out somewhere), they're glued to it. Completely blank stare. We find it a bit scary.

To get things done we usually wait until the kids are in bed (like now). We have some good babysitters, too.
posted by russilwvong at 10:48 PM on October 18, 2006

TV causing autism is ridiculous!

Paternal age at the time of birth is worth studying and certainly the connection between severe autism and austistic spectrum parents.

Who funded this study?
posted by leyna howe at 11:50 AM on October 23, 2006