Why Kids Should Go Cold Turkey On Tech
Stop letting your children watch this popular show — it’s frying their brains on purpose
Look up which shows are most popular among children these days, and you’re sure to find Netflix’s "CoComelon" at the top of the list. The animated series prides itself on teaching preschoolers basic concepts like letters, numbers, colors, shapes, and social skills through catchy nursery rhymes, original songs, and colorful 3D animation. Emphasizing positive themes such as kindness, sharing, and problem-solving, "CoComelon" seems benign, perhaps even beneficial, to parents who need a moment’s peace or a few minutes to prepare a meal.
However, a deeper dive into the making of the series reveals a sinister truth: The creators are purposely frying children’s brains.
To dive into this controversy, Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” invites Clare Morell, author and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, to the show to share her knowledge.
Morell, citing a New York Times article, says that researchers at Moonbug Entertainment, the British children’s content company behind "CoComelon," test child subjects in front of two screens. One airs an episode of "CoComelon"; the other, dubbed the “Distractatron,” runs through mundane footage — “ a mom cooking dinner, a dad vacuuming.” A team of note-taking researchers observes from a glass room.
“Any time the child looked away from "CoComelon" and found the real-life scene more interesting, the episode makers would note that down, where that time stamp was within the show, and then they'd go back and they'd add more music, brighter lights, flashing colors to that point in the show because they want it to be immersive and addictive to a child,” says Morell.
So what kind of digital content is safe for young children, then?
According to Morell, none.
“The brain is in really critical periods of development, especially in those early years, and the problem is that screens are way overstimulating for a child's developing nervous system, and studies show that handing devices to these young children robs them of their ability to develop emotional regulation,” she explains. “Instead of developing patience and self-control and frustration tolerance, they're just learning to be calmed by a screen.”
Screen time limitations, she says, unfortunately, are ineffective.
“A daily screen time limit — even if it's a short amount of time — is incredibly habit-forming,” she tells Allie. Like "CoComelon," “devices are made to be addictive to a child's brain.”
“The problem is that the screen time limits don't map on to a child's mental or emotional time that is then spent craving more and more of that device because of the dopamine in the brain,” Morrell explains. “They're going to constantly crave more, and it really disregulates their developing nervous system, and so it's really important to protect those young years.”
To hear more of the conversation and learn how to protect not just your young children but also your teenagers from the harms posed by screens, watch the episode above.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
We're all 'too busy' to eat dinner as a family — but we should do it anyway
What does it mean to eat dinner together as a family?
Why do we do it? Or rather, why did we do it? It seems the number of families who eat dinner together every night is shrinking.
I remember that if the phone rang during that time, my parents would look at one another shocked. 'Who would be calling during dinner?'
It feels like every year it becomes more rare. The image of a mother, father, and a couple kids sitting around a table, full plates in front of them and a few serving dishes in the middle, is becoming an old-fashioned image in our day and age.
Today, families are too busy to have dinner together. Too much work, too many obligations, too many schedules.
Dad has meetings, mom has to go to the gym, the kids have practice, dinner will have to wait.
Grab and go
A house today is more a place for atomized individuals to rest their heads at night before heading out and on their way every morning. It’s more a hostel and less a home. Breakfast out the door, lunch on the go, dinner on your own.
What kind of family life is this?
In the preindustrial world, families saw a lot of one another. Life wasn’t a fairy tale back then, times were tough, I am not sure people were always so chipper or joyful, but families did spend a lot of time together. That’s just how it was.
Life in the modern world, on the other hand, is hectic. Today, families are pulled apart by the chaos of modern life: the activities that never stop, the nagging sense that we might be able to “have it all.”
An antidote to atomization
For a while in the 20th century, families coped with the fracturing chaos of modern life by eating dinner together every night. It was a standard thing. All across American society, families ate dinner together.
Not just on Sunday or Saturday. Every night. Practices, classes, and rehearsals were scheduled around dinner. People weren’t forced to choose between dinner and some prescheduled activity or obligation.
Even deep into the '90s, there was a sense that you shouldn’t call anyone between 6:30 and 8:30 in the evening. That was when people ate dinner. There was an assumption everyone was eating with their families. I remember that if the phone rang during that time, my parents would look at one another shocked.
“Who would be calling during dinner?”
Dinner was the final sacred realm. The last untouched territory. Everyone might be out on their own all day, but at 6:00, everyone came back together as a family again.
Kids would tell one another, “I’ve got to go, I have to be back for dinner.” The street was quieter at those times. The world slowed for a couple hours. For the sanctity of dinner, the sanctity of family.
This is gone today. That societal detente has been eroded. Dinner is no longer respected.
Making dinner matter again
Now, parents eat separately because it’s easier. Kids eat on the bus on the way back from the volleyball tournament. Families go out to eat, and they all sit around the table scrolling their iPhones not saying a single word to one another. Today, for most, dinner doesn’t matter.
But it can. Even though society tries to fracture the family in 100 ways, we don’t have to go along with it. We still have free will. We can choose a different way. We can still come together as a family for dinner every single night.
That’s what we do in our family. We don’t watch TV during dinner, we don’t look at our phones during dinner, we don’t have separate dinners for mom and dad. We all sit down together every night.
The freedom of obligation
It’s not always easy. It’s hard with little kids. Every parent knows that. The messes, the cajoling, trying to teach manners while eating at the same time. Often, it’s not exactly a relaxing vibe.
It would be so much easier to throw something together for the kids, sit them at the table, then go in the other room and scroll the timeline on my phone. It would be so much easier to not block off that time every night. I would have more freedom if we didn’t eat dinner together. But I would be missing something important. I would be missing dinner together.
Our culture is what we do. Eating dinner together is a part of our culture. Eating dinner every night with no other distractions is good. Even when it’s bad, it’s good.
It’s not about grand meals or perfectly prepared dishes. It’s about something deeper. Eating dinner together is about coming back together at the end of the day, sitting around the table, and looking at each other in the eye — remembering that we are a family, thanking God for the food in front of us and also for those around us.
That’s what eating dinner as a family is about.
Meet the ‘I don’t know’ generation
During my freshman year of high school, my English teacher required each student to memorize quotes from the play “Julius Caesar.” Ever since, I have turned to Shakespeare’s words in times of turmoil and turbulence to remember essential truths:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves ...”
“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.”
“This was the most unkindest cut of all.”
Likewise, in 2013, then-future British Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Hong Kong and spoke about finding solace and fortitude amid life’s brevity and failures. He said he often looked to a passage from “The Iliad.” In a remarkable show of erudition, Johnson recited that excerpt in ancient Greek for more than two minutes, leaving his audience in awe.
No one wants to say it, but we are fostering an entire generation of Americans with 'slower' brains.
Last year, actor Jeff Goldblum appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” When asked how he “stays inspired,” he delivered a lengthy, heartfelt quote from George Bernard Shaw about “the true joy in life.” His effortless recall was striking.
Such spontaneous displays of deep knowledge are rare today for a sobering reason: We are raising a generation less and less capable of presenting such learned feats. Students simply do not study as they once did, nor can they retain information at the same level. As a result, their knowledge gaps are enormous — so vast, in fact, that those outside the teaching profession might find them hard to fathom.
This is not hyperbole or melodrama; it reflects the lived reality of today’s American classroom. Students possess shocking gaps in their knowledge. Can they name the state capitals? Planets in the solar system? Basic grammar, cursive, oceans, or continents? Do they understand what makes certain presidents great? Are the years 1066, 1215, 1776, or 1941 significant to them? Sadly, the list goes on.
Data from the National Center for Education Statistics confirms this decline: study times have fallen, and students complete less homework. Even when they study, they often become distracted by phones and other devices. Gen Z reportedly spends up to nine hours a day on screens.
Most American college students study less than two hours per day. Strangely, despite these dwindling efforts, grades have soared and graduation rates are higher than ever. This paradox — less work yielding better results — casts doubt on modern education. It recalls a line from the 1990s group C+C Music Factory: “Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...”
No one wants to say it, but we are fostering an entire generation of Americans with “slower” brains. Students increasingly claim they cannot study, explaining that they simply “cannot remember anything” when it is time for an exam. A new family of expressions — “brain rot,” “doom scrolling” — have emerged to describe the damage.
Why don’t kids read any more? They can’t concentrate. And even if they could, many lack the vocabulary or cultural-historical knowledge to appreciate what they read. Try understanding “A Farewell to Arms” when you know almost nothing about World War I. Try grasping “The Kite Runner” if you have never heard of Afghanistan.
Traditional methods of rigorous study and rote memorization have largely fallen out of favor, dismissed as relics of a bygone educational era. In their place, newer objectives — such as promoting “21st-century skills,” emphasizing social-emotional health, encouraging “digital literacy,” or exploring identity — have taken center stage.
At the same time, modern “thought leaders” and consultants, many with little or no firsthand classroom experience, often mock the foundational goals of education: building strong reading and writing skills and cultivating deep, substantive knowledge.
But we can do something about it: When we raise the bar, our young people can and will rise to meet it.
And here is the dead giveaway. Many of the same kids who claim they cannot study for academics somehow find a way to memorize dozens of plays on the football field, lines for a drama production, or moves for a video game.
I tested this theory in my classroom, asking students to memorize foundational American texts: the Preamble to the Constitution, the First Amendment, and the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. At first, they balked. But over time, something remarkable happened. They didn’t just learn the words; they learned something essential about themselves. They discovered that effort yields rewards and that they were capable of more than they had believed. As my freshman English teacher taught me, some truths are worth remembering forever.
Knowledge isn’t just valuable in the marketplace; it’s essential for a well-lived life. It builds the foundation of a substantial self, grounded not in fleeting trends or momentary chicness, but in the wisdom of the ages.
Without intellectual rigor, our children will never know what they’re capable of or how high they can reach. The solution is simple yet profound: Ask more. Demand more. And watch the magic happen.
Sweden Warns Parents: Quit Plopping Your Baby In Front Of Brain-Rotting Screens
The paradox of screens: Parents and grandparents wrestle with how much screen time to give kids
Parents and screen time
Parenthood is brutal — it has always been brutal. But in an era of unstoppable tech growth, raising children becomes more difficult by the day.
If you have kids or grandkids under the age of 13, you know the paradox of screens. The chaos of parenthood is relentless, and there’s a special brand for those of us with little kids. Exhaustion of every sort.
Peace is hard to come by for parents and many grandparents, especially those of us with little ones.
I have toddlers. Screen time is one of the constant subjects of examination between my wife and me. We're always assessing our screen time, our personal relationships with our phones, and the behavior we model for our kids.
Handing your kid a phone or tablet is a quick way to buy a moment of silence. We are desperate for the chance to think, to breathe, and sit still.
But this is no ordinary quiet. Screen time offers immediate relief in exchange for destruction that comes later. Parents make this deal constantly regarding screen time. Handing your kid a phone or tablet is the quickest way to neutralize a chaotic environment.
But this pause is deceptive. It doesn’t seem to remedy the situation, and it may even worsen the chaos.
Then there’s the addict-like response kids exhibit immediately after being handed a phone, a slot-machine glaze. They grip it like a starving ape grips bananas, as a tool for survival.
The Mayo Clinic warns that excessive screen time has been noted to lead to all sorts of health issues, including obesity, violent behavior, attention deficit, sleep disruptions, and erratic behavior.
It can even lead to “sensory differences” in toddlers.
There are plenty of detractors who frame the rejection of screen time as part of a moral panic, contending that it’s harmless or even beneficial.
This is one of the bizarre confrontations that have arisen with any new technology over the course of human history: People feel that these recent advancements are causing an incredible amount of harm. The other group claims that “every generation panics about technology, but most of the time their anxiety is actually ignorance and fear."
Reality lies in between the two: The invention of the ship is also the invention of the shipwreck.
Big little feelings
damircudic/Getty Images
Fad parenting has always been a problem. And like fads in general, it risks being swept aside at a moment’s notice, leaving a generation of disenchanted parents in its wake.
Each generation winds up with its own parenting philosophy. It’s corrective, a way to address the failures of the previous system. It’s also expressive, allowing each parent to rule the kingdom creatively. It is full of predictions about what matters and what doesn’t, what should worry parents and what shouldn’t — with plenty of outrage and hysteria along the way.
This philosophy is also a response to the folkways, constraints, disasters, luxuries, and technologies of that exact moment in history.
The current era of parenting seems largely focused on gentleness. Gentle parenting is the coin of the realm. I’ll give you a rushed, cursory, and probably haphazard explanation.
Gentle parenting, known formally as “attachment parenting,” is guided by empathy, the willingness to sit with a kid who, by most accounts, is being a real piece of work. Gentle parenting is focused on language that often sounds politically correct, like how it emphasizes bad behavior is “action,” not identity. It’s wrong, for instance, to say that a kid is mean. Say instead that the kid is acting mean. Parents are advised to “comment on the action, not the person.”
Every new parent I know has taken a parenting course from “Big Little Feelings.” It may be the most obvious example of Millennial parenting philosophy available. I have to admit, the course has benefitted my parenting tremendously.
The course has an entry on handling outbursts related to screen time, and as a true Millennial philosophy, the solution to screen time tantrums involves an acronym, PREP:
- P: Plan in advance.
- R: Reveal the plan.
- E: Explain the details.
- P: Put your toddler in charge.
The method remains unproven, but my point here is that it serves as a perfect representation of the parental angst unique to this era of total networking, total communication, total information.
The New Yorker captured this weird disharmony, where, in all of its planning, “gentle parenting represents a turn away from a still dominant progressive approach known as ‘authoritative parenting.’” It feels inherently feminine, yet it’s not. Because we have also seen an unprecedented shift in the father’s role and presence in family life.
At its worst, gentle parenting resembles the performance of a cartoonish NPR host, whispering passive-aggressive slogans that don’t correspond to reality. At its best, it offers a key to peace in the household. It can be annoying and stilted. But it can also be calming.
Screen activism
If you have young daughters or granddaughters, you should read “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters” by Abigail Shrier.
She charts the spread of radical gender ideology as the cause of “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” in which prepubescent girls who have never expressed any sort of gender confusion suddenly develop an identity centered on gender and body dysphoria.
Transgender activists hate Shrier largely because she exposes the dark side of screen time, which political radicals use for recruitment.
She argues that this fad is unnatural — it has never occurred at any other moment in recorded medical history. She makes a compelling case, and one of the phenomena she cites as proof is the influence that social media has on these girls.
She refers to Jonathan Haidt’s observation that we’re living through a “mental health crisis,” the worst in decades, specifically affecting adolescent girls. Depression and anxiety rates are spiking, along with self-harm.
And Shrier correlates it to the rise of the iPhone and social media. This has left kids today not just depressed and anxious but also socially underdeveloped. She argues that kids today feel like they should be able to live the carefree lives of their parents, but they don’t know how. So they seek the guidance of online personas who appear to have things figured out.
This leads to peer contagion, the cultural spread of a mental pathology. Increasingly, we have seen how this process occurs throughout the education system.
The “trans influencers” behind this fad are devoted to evangelization. Their biggest argument is that early intervention is necessary, the earlier the better. As Shrier puts it, “Trans influencers typically take a by-any-means necessary approach to procuring cross-sex hormones. Whatever you have to do, whatever you have to say — do it. Your life is on the line.”
Shrier’s response to this tactic is one of her most compelling points: Intervention is not a pause button. No studies show that puberty blockers are safe or reversible. They stop sexual maturation and development of bone density from occurring.
Studies have shown that from there, nearly 100% of kids put on puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This guarantees that the child will be infertile and have permanent sex dysfunction. In other words, early intervention almost guarantees infertility. We should hammer this in. It’s maybe the most shocking and unacknowledged part of the transgender craze.
In other words, screen time has led to an unprecedented crisis of psychosis-driven mutilation.
Shipwrecked
Tassii/Getty Images
Jonathan Haidt is quite possibly the most reasonable man in America. He is somehow unaffected by the political vertigo of our time, able to connect with every sort of person. He has approached the dangers of social media from many angles: as a tool for activism, as a corruptor of colleges, as a harm to teenage girls, even as a modern version of the story of the Tower of Babel.
In an article for the Atlantic titled “After Babel: Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” Haidt uses the Tower of Babel as a metaphor “for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit.”
The story of Babel comprises one short chapter of the Bible, Genesis 11. Yet it’s a story everyone knows. He describes “people wandering amid the ruins, unable to communicate, condemned to mutual incomprehension.”
Like the people in the story of Babel, America is in trouble: “Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.”
Social media platforms have damaged our trust, degraded our belief in institutions, and eradicated our shared stories. Haidt has been sounding the alarm about social media for years now, including in his most recent book, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness."
Children born after 1995 are disproportionately anxious. This is largely the result of screen time. Screen time is alienating. It leads to isolation. Hence the alarming rates of depression and anxiety, both rooted in aloneness.
Haidt argues that over the past 30 years, it has led to a rapid decline in “play-based childhood,” which has been replaced in the past decade by “phone-based childhood.”
The Mayo Clinic confirms his assertions.
He notes that the smartphone-driven "great rewiring of childhood" is causing an “epidemic of mental illness.” He suggests four ways to combat this: no smartphones before high school, no social media before age 16, no phones in schools, and prioritizing real-world play and independence.
He describes “smartphones as ‘experience blockers' because once you give the phone to a child, it’s going to take up every moment that is not nailed down to something else,” adding that “it’s basically the loss of childhood in the real world.”
He concludes with a similar refrain: “The most important change we can make to reduce the damaging effects of social media on children is to delay entry until they have passed through puberty.”
Like so much else as a parent, this process winds up being tough but redemptive.
Kids' shows your children can actually watch
I don’t believe that exposure to technology is tantamount to child abuse as some uber-crunchy trads might insist. That said, they're reacting to a culture that pushes tablets and phones on the very young, despite fairly convincing evidence suggesting that too much screen time may harm kids’ cognitive, linguistic, and social-emotional growth.
'Prolonged exposure to high-stimulation shows, even those with virtuously 'educational' packaging such as 'Baby Einstein,' primes children for inattention.'
Is it possible to stake out a reasonable middle ground? In my view, yes — provided you have a clear-eyed understanding of just what pitfalls to avoid.
Sheer quantity is obvious enough. Consuming six hours straight of uninterrupted screen time is the dopamine-overdose equivalent of binging a family-sized bag of Reese’s cups: pretty clearly a bad habit to indulge. Of course, most "content" today is designed for passive binging, putting the onus on the parent to keep time. You don't want to forget your child in front of "Bluey" any more than you'd want to forget your roast in the oven.
Then, you have to consider the ideology (trans, critical race theory, etc.) smuggled into the average children’s television programming these days. What makes it particularly insidious is the difficulty of knowing where exactly it comes from.
Vaclav Havel foretold this in his essay “The Power of the Powerless,” in which he describes life under communism through the story of a greengrocer. The greengrocer put a communist slogan in his shop window, not because he particularly liked its content, not because the content was true, not in the hope that someone might be persuaded by it,
but to contribute, along with thousands of other slogans, to the panorama that everyone is very much aware of. This panorama, of course, has a subliminal meaning as well: it reminds people where they are living and what is expected of them. It tells them what everyone else is doing, and indicates to them what they must do as well, if they don't want to be excluded, to fall into isolation, alienate themselves from society, break the rules of the game, and risk the loss of their peace and tranquility and security.
That is to say, it is an utterly gratuitous form of psychological torture. What a good reason to cancel the show, and the network, for good measure.
But quality doesn’t begin and end with the message itself. Canadian philosopher and father of media theory Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase “the medium is the message,” the idea that the manner of communication can often say more about the culture, and the messages that culture communicates, than the explicit messages themselves.
Illustrating his point, wokeness as a form of political manipulation and psychological terrorism entered its heyday in tandem with high-stimulation special-effect media. Dr. Dimitri Christakis says that the pace of the media has a significant impact on its quality, at least in terms of a child’s neural development. His research indicates that prolonged exposure to high-stimulation shows, even those with virtuously "educational" packaging such as “Baby Einstein,” primes children for inattention. The type of input that the mind learns to crave is not available in the real world, so the child becomes addicted to the constant, unchallenged emotional gratification of the screen.
Suppose, however, that parents enforce strict time limits and vet all shows for messaging. Is the occasional hour or two of curated screen time fine?
The study I linked to at the beginning suggests that it is, especially if we balance it our with “green time."
Here, I’ve curated some of my favorite high-quality, low-stimulation, and actually child-appropriate shows that my kids watch when they’re sick or I need to get something done. This list is not exhaustive, so please share in the comments: What morally and aesthetically wholesome shows have you found that get the sort of crunchy, Christian mom stamp of approval?
- Little Bear
- Adventures from the Book of Virtues
- Heidi, and most things with Shirley Temple
- Mister Roger’s Neighborhood
- My Neighbor Totoro, and most things by Hayao Miyazaki
- Classical Ballet via Marquee TV or Youtube
- Zoboomafoo with the Kratt Brothers
- Madeleine
- Prince of Egypt
Doctor explains why he shows his young kids 'South Park'
Addiction medicine specialist and media personality Dr. Drew Pinsky, better known as “Dr. Drew,” is well aware of the impact of screens on children.
“Screens are a problem,” he tells Dave Rubin. “No doubt that screens are part of the distress that’s going on right now, particularly for young people.”
According to Drew, the solution is society coming to a general consensus that screen time is not good for children.
“The only way it’ll happen is if all parents in every given community do it together, otherwise it’ll be just sharing screens during the day and stuff,” he says.
Rubin notes that no matter how many parents say they refuse to allow their kids to have screen time, a lot of parents end up giving in.
“You might want a quiet dinner at a restaurant one night and you hand them the iPad and then it’s five years later and then they’re just whatever they do, they’re making cookies,” he tells Drew.
Dr. Drew isn’t perfect either.
“One of the things we did that maybe was inadvisable, I watched 'South Park' with my sons,” he tells Rubin. “I always felt okay about it even though there was some inappropriate stuff in there because we discuss it all, and we talk about it.”
Want more from Dave Rubin?
To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories