Analyzing “The Debilitating Effects of TV on Children”
After reading “The Debilitating Effects of TV on Children” written by Grohol my opinions on television and children and adults alike changed greatly. I do not have children but I have four younger siblings so I know a thing or two from personal experience. I think this article is full of research supporting Grohol’s argument. In Grohol’s article he states, ““Ah,” but you argue, “I grew up on TV and I came out okay!” Sure, personal anecdotes and analogies are great, but not a great way to inform public policy or carry on a serious public health debate.” (Grohol, 2009) Before reading this article I was that person who watched TV as a child and came out okay. After reading the article and looking at the data provided by Grohol I saw things a little differently. This is because of the second line of the quote, Grohol is right just because I turned out okay watching television as a child does not mean that it is the case for the majority of children who grow up in front of the “boob tube”. There have been so many studies that are showing the opposite, one case does not create research. Research includes many cases and many studies; and that is what changed my mind. During this paper I will be examining Grohol’s main purpose, arguments, evidence, inferences, assumptions, and line of reasoning.
Dr. Grohol’s main purpose for writing this article is to inform the public that as American we allow our children to watch too much T.V. and we also watch too much T.V. as well. This purpose is the biggest argument he pushes towards during the entire article. Grohol is pressing the issue that watching too much T.V. is causing negative effects on child development. In Grohol’s article he states “The upshot — we Americans watch way too much TV and we raise our children on TV, somewhat oblivious to its negative effects on our children’s development.” (Grohol, 2009)
Grohol’s main arguments are based on his research, data, and facts. Grohol uses evidence in his article to support his arguments. The main argument that he is making is the fact that watching too much T.V. and watching T.V. in general has negative effects on individuals as adults and children. Grohol even states information on toddlers not watching T.V. at all. Grohol’s main arguments are based on his research, data, and facts. His research includes the research of Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons in 2007. This research was showing the negative attitude and poor academics caused from 14 year olds watching T.V. only one or more hours per day. He also included research from the American Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine; this data showed that the more time that was spent watching T.V. is related to the lower levels of adult education. As well as a study by the University of Michigan Health System which mentioned smoking, high cholesterol, weight, and sleep problems all caused by excessive T.V. watching.
The main conclusion that Grohol comes to in his article is that watching T.V. is bad for you; there are many negative side effects to watching T.V. at all ages. There are not many assumptions in Dr. Grohol’s articles but one noted assumption is the fact that Dr. Grohol assumes that many individuals just plop their children in front of a T.V. at a young age. Through current knowledge this could be true, but at the same time from personal experience I know that not all individuals let their children watch excessive amounts of television at a young age, and some parents limit the amount of television children are watching.
If I am to accept Dr. Grohol’s reasoning the implications for me personally would be to follow his line of advice and limit the amount of television children are watching, possibly to spread the information of Dr. Grohol’s so that more individuals can educate themselves on the side effects of watching television. The implications of rejecting Grohol’s research and line of reasoning would be to continue doing things the way they are. Researchers will continue to see the negative side effects of watching television especially at a young age. This would be the same as turning a blind eye to an important issue.
References:
Grohol, J. (2009, September, 9.). The debilitating effects of TV on children [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/09/27/the-debilitating-effects-of-tv-on-children/
Additional Note:
Looking back at the Elements of Thought model I feel as though I thoroughly went through the model while analyzing Grohol’s article.
Looking at the question at issue section in the model I notice that I used a few of the questions such as. “What is the question I am trying to answer?” “Is this question clear? Is it complex?” (Grohol, 2009)I felt as though the question Grohol was asking was not exactly a question but it could be broke down into a question form; such as asking myself Is it okay for children, teens, and young adults to watch television? Also is it okay to watch excessive amounts of television? What are the problems created by watching television? I felt as though once the questions were broke down they were not complex at all.
Looking at the Information section of the model, I tried to answer all of the questions while analyzing the article. Grohol included a lot of research in his article and this helped while analyzing it. Before reading the article I was very skeptical about it but once reading his research it became very interesting and persuading. A few of the questions I used while analyzing where “What data are relevant to this problem?” “What experience convinced you of this? Could your experience be distorted?” and “Have we left out any important information that we need to consider?” (Grohol, 2009)I felt all data included in Grohol’s article was relevant to the problem, he did not include any unnecessary and for the length of the article I feel like he gave a sufficient amount of research. Experience actually led me to the arguing side of the article, my experience could be a bit distorted but experience did lead me to disagree with Grohol; the research convinced me otherwise. I felt that Grohol did not leave out any important information.
While reading over the point of view part of the model I notice that I did not consider too much about other readers point of view on the subject. For example “Have you ever considered the way ____(Japanese, Muslims, South Americans, etc.) view this?”(Grohol, 2009) I did consider the authors viewpoint and the fact that some viewpoints make more sense in given situations. I also realized that my view would not be the only reasonable view; this argument could be answered either way.
The next section of the model that I used questions from was purpose, I really dug into this section with my analyzation because I felt it was something that should be elaborated on. Grohol had a justifiable purpose that he was extremely clear about. A few of the questions I used include, “What is the objective of this assignment (task, job, experiment, policy, strategy, etc.)?” “What is your, my, their purpose in doing________?” “What is your central aim in this line of thought?” (Grohol, 2009)I felt as though the purpose of this article was to educate individuals on the negativities of television, I believe Grohol felt as though he had a purpose for writing this article and intended to make an impact by doing so. I think the central aim in Grohol’s line of thought is to make it known that watching television at any age is not a good thing, especially in excessiveness.
References:
Foundation For Critical Thinking. (2007). Elements of thought. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/ctmodel/logic-model1.htm
Grohol, J. (2009, September, 9.). The debilitating effects of TV on children [Web log message]. Retrieved fromhttp://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/09/27/the-debilitating-effects-of-tv-on-children/
After reading “The Debilitating Effects of TV on Children” written by Grohol my opinions on television and children and adults alike changed greatly. I do not have children but I have four younger siblings so I know a thing or two from personal experience. I think this article is full of research supporting Grohol’s argument. In Grohol’s article he states, ““Ah,” but you argue, “I grew up on TV and I came out okay!” Sure, personal anecdotes and analogies are great, but not a great way to inform public policy or carry on a serious public health debate.” (Grohol, 2009) Before reading this article I was that person who watched TV as a child and came out okay. After reading the article and looking at the data provided by Grohol I saw things a little differently. This is because of the second line of the quote, Grohol is right just because I turned out okay watching television as a child does not mean that it is the case for the majority of children who grow up in front of the “boob tube”. There have been so many studies that are showing the opposite, one case does not create research. Research includes many cases and many studies; and that is what changed my mind. During this paper I will be examining Grohol’s main purpose, arguments, evidence, inferences, assumptions, and line of reasoning.
Dr. Grohol’s main purpose for writing this article is to inform the public that as American we allow our children to watch too much T.V. and we also watch too much T.V. as well. This purpose is the biggest argument he pushes towards during the entire article. Grohol is pressing the issue that watching too much T.V. is causing negative effects on child development. In Grohol’s article he states “The upshot — we Americans watch way too much TV and we raise our children on TV, somewhat oblivious to its negative effects on our children’s development.” (Grohol, 2009)
Grohol’s main arguments are based on his research, data, and facts. Grohol uses evidence in his article to support his arguments. The main argument that he is making is the fact that watching too much T.V. and watching T.V. in general has negative effects on individuals as adults and children. Grohol even states information on toddlers not watching T.V. at all. Grohol’s main arguments are based on his research, data, and facts. His research includes the research of Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons in 2007. This research was showing the negative attitude and poor academics caused from 14 year olds watching T.V. only one or more hours per day. He also included research from the American Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine; this data showed that the more time that was spent watching T.V. is related to the lower levels of adult education. As well as a study by the University of Michigan Health System which mentioned smoking, high cholesterol, weight, and sleep problems all caused by excessive T.V. watching.
The main conclusion that Grohol comes to in his article is that watching T.V. is bad for you; there are many negative side effects to watching T.V. at all ages. There are not many assumptions in Dr. Grohol’s articles but one noted assumption is the fact that Dr. Grohol assumes that many individuals just plop their children in front of a T.V. at a young age. Through current knowledge this could be true, but at the same time from personal experience I know that not all individuals let their children watch excessive amounts of television at a young age, and some parents limit the amount of television children are watching.
If I am to accept Dr. Grohol’s reasoning the implications for me personally would be to follow his line of advice and limit the amount of television children are watching, possibly to spread the information of Dr. Grohol’s so that more individuals can educate themselves on the side effects of watching television. The implications of rejecting Grohol’s research and line of reasoning would be to continue doing things the way they are. Researchers will continue to see the negative side effects of watching television especially at a young age. This would be the same as turning a blind eye to an important issue.
References:
Grohol, J. (2009, September, 9.). The debilitating effects of TV on children [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/09/27/the-debilitating-effects-of-tv-on-children/
Additional Note:
Looking back at the Elements of Thought model I feel as though I thoroughly went through the model while analyzing Grohol’s article.
Looking at the question at issue section in the model I notice that I used a few of the questions such as. “What is the question I am trying to answer?” “Is this question clear? Is it complex?” (Grohol, 2009)I felt as though the question Grohol was asking was not exactly a question but it could be broke down into a question form; such as asking myself Is it okay for children, teens, and young adults to watch television? Also is it okay to watch excessive amounts of television? What are the problems created by watching television? I felt as though once the questions were broke down they were not complex at all.
Looking at the Information section of the model, I tried to answer all of the questions while analyzing the article. Grohol included a lot of research in his article and this helped while analyzing it. Before reading the article I was very skeptical about it but once reading his research it became very interesting and persuading. A few of the questions I used while analyzing where “What data are relevant to this problem?” “What experience convinced you of this? Could your experience be distorted?” and “Have we left out any important information that we need to consider?” (Grohol, 2009)I felt all data included in Grohol’s article was relevant to the problem, he did not include any unnecessary and for the length of the article I feel like he gave a sufficient amount of research. Experience actually led me to the arguing side of the article, my experience could be a bit distorted but experience did lead me to disagree with Grohol; the research convinced me otherwise. I felt that Grohol did not leave out any important information.
While reading over the point of view part of the model I notice that I did not consider too much about other readers point of view on the subject. For example “Have you ever considered the way ____(Japanese, Muslims, South Americans, etc.) view this?”(Grohol, 2009) I did consider the authors viewpoint and the fact that some viewpoints make more sense in given situations. I also realized that my view would not be the only reasonable view; this argument could be answered either way.
The next section of the model that I used questions from was purpose, I really dug into this section with my analyzation because I felt it was something that should be elaborated on. Grohol had a justifiable purpose that he was extremely clear about. A few of the questions I used include, “What is the objective of this assignment (task, job, experiment, policy, strategy, etc.)?” “What is your, my, their purpose in doing________?” “What is your central aim in this line of thought?” (Grohol, 2009)I felt as though the purpose of this article was to educate individuals on the negativities of television, I believe Grohol felt as though he had a purpose for writing this article and intended to make an impact by doing so. I think the central aim in Grohol’s line of thought is to make it known that watching television at any age is not a good thing, especially in excessiveness.
References:
Foundation For Critical Thinking. (2007). Elements of thought. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/ctmodel/logic-model1.htm
Grohol, J. (2009, September, 9.). The debilitating effects of TV on children [Web log message]. Retrieved fromhttp://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/09/27/the-debilitating-effects-of-tv-on-children/
RSS Feed