An Inconvenient Truth
Let’s face it. Hearing that video games, texting, and the iPad might need to be banned from your child’s life does not fill one with glorious joy. Rather, for many, it creates an immediate urge to find a way either to discredit the information or to work around it. Sometimes when I tell parents what they need to do in order to turn things around, I sense that I am losing them … their eyes shift away, they squirm, and they look like they’re in the hot seat. This is not what they want to hear. It’s as though I’m telling them they need to live without electricity — that is how ingrained screens are in our lives. The inconvenience of what I’m proposing can seem overwhelming. Aside from dreading the inconvenience, though, discussing ESS and the Reset often produces other negative feelings. Some folks feel as though their parenting skills are being judged, or that their efforts or level of exhaustion are underappreciated. Other parents feel guilty or irresponsible for not setting healthier screen-time limits to begin with, or they become acutely aware that their own screen-time use is out of balance.
Let’s dig a little deeper into some other negative reactions parents experience upon hearing about the effects of electronics or the fast itself. These are feelings that are sometimes pushed outside of everyday awareness, and these same feelings, when left unacknowledged, can undermine your success. Conversely, getting in touch with where any resistance is coming from will help you work through it, and it will help you understand others’ resistance, too. These challenges are discussed throughout the book, but because these concerns can be preoccupying, I’d like to acknowledge them here. Below are some of the reactions parents commonly experience:
• Parents feel overwhelmed by the sheer pervasiveness of screens and are convinced that removing them all will be “way too hard.”
• Parents fear the child’s reaction and worry that a fast will be met with rage, despair, and tantrums.
• Parents feel guilty about taking away a pleasurable activity, and/or they are concerned the child will no longer fit in with peers.
• Parents worry about, and even resent, losing their “electronic babysitter,” and they wonder how they will get household tasks done without it.
• Parents doubt that electronics are the problem, or they don’t believe removing them will solve their child’s problems.
• Parents worry about what others (in their family or community) will think. Will others undermine their efforts to limit screens, or view them as extremist or alarmist — and therefore not take their concerns seriously?
• Parents are annoyed by the inconvenience of removing or restricting laptops, iPads, and mobile devices they themselves use.
Of all the reactions, perhaps the hardest to deal with is guilt. No parent wants to feel they have unwittingly contributed to their child’s difficulties. And many parents already harbor guilt regarding the use of electronics. Whatever rules they have set or usage they allow, they often already feel that they are allowing “too much” and that their own use does not set the good example they’d like it to. Nor do any parents want to do something they know will put their child into a genuine state of despair; for some parents, even the thought of removing electronics causes them to feel tortured.
Guilt is an exquisitely uncomfortable emotion, and, as such, it is human nature to avoid feeling it. When it comes to electronics, one way parents assuage guilt is to rationalize its use: “Screen-time is the only time my kids are quiet.” “Electronics allow me to get things done.” “Screen-time is the only motivator that works.” “It’s what all the kids do, and anyway my child uses it a lot less than others.” “I only let her play educational games.” And so on. If you find yourself rationalizing use, simply cut yourself some slack and keep reading. I don’t want you to dwell on what’s already happened; I only wish to show you there’s a way out. On the other hand, if you think you might be rationalizing use to avoid guilty feelings over taking electronics away, then just acknowledge this fact, and know that these feelings will diminish as you take action and start to see positive changes.
Aside from guilt, parents also experience anxiety about the potential impact of an electronic fast on their child: they worry about how the child will react, about what his or her peers will think (particularly if the child already has social problems), and about whether screen restrictions will breed resentment and put additional strain on an already tense parent-child relationship. Even when parents agree that screen-time is a problem, many fear that the Reset will only produce more stress — more headaches, more tears, more work. Yet while many parents feel overwhelmed initially, most report that the Reset is far easier than they imagined. This is in part because the child “gets over it” a lot faster than the parents expect, and in part because as the relief and pleasure grow from seeing their child become happier, better behaved, and more focused, the restrictions become easier for everyone to follow.
Lastly, some parents question the concept of Electronic Screen Syndrome itself. They want scientific proof behind the claims I make. After all, how could something so pervasive have been overlooked as a problem until now, and don’t “positive” studies regarding interactive screen-time come out on a regular basis? I have two answers to this question. The first is to emphasize that despite seemingly conflicting studies presented by the popular press, there is a solid consensus in the medical community that screen-time is associated with multiple adverse outcomes — including academic, emotional, sleep-related, behavioral, and physical health issues — and that these effects may be long-lasting.12 Indeed, this now rather large body of research is cited throughout this book, and there has been a push by the American Academy of Pediatrics to encourage physicians to discuss screen-time health risks with parents.13 And positive studies? Even I admit there may be special cases where video games might be helpful, such as rehabilitating a limb after a serious injury. But those instances are the exception, not the norm. The vast majority of positive findings don’t transfer to real-life functioning or are conclusions from studies that aren’t considered methodologically sound. There will never be 100 percent consensus among researchers in any field, but with screen-related research, studies are often funded by powerful corporations or organizations with vested financial and political interests. These studies’ findings are suspect to begin with, and they are also “spun” in terms of significance.
For instance, regarding the use of technology in education, it may appear that there is a division of scientific opinion regarding risks versus benefits. However, despite much hype and many promises, there is as yet no solid evidence that educational software enhances learning or brain development, while there is increasingly clear evidence that computer use may hamper both. Meanwhile, virtually all the “positive” research studies are industry funded.14 Educational policy makers are often misled by such research, whose decisions trickle down to school administrators, who then buy software and licensing agreements, and so it goes.
In contrast, whether their focus is medical, psychological, or educational, serious researchers who don’t have skin in the game also don’t have huge public relations departments — which is why you don’t always hear about their work. There is nothing inherently radical about linking screen-time usage with behavioral problems. Perhaps the most radical thing I’ve done is to gather a wide range of diverse symptoms under a single name and created an effective program to address it.
Which leads to my second answer to this question. Whatever specific studies show, whatever you believe about screen-time usage, the Reset Program works. That it works is the best evidence that screen-time usage, in itself, can cause behavioral, mood, and cognitive problems. Even if parents are unsure, the risks of trying an electronic fast are virtually nonexistent. The Reset Program involves no real expenses, no medicine, and has no side effects. It’s safe, widely applicable, and is shown to be highly effective across multiple domains. Yes, there are inconveniences, but what are they next to the difficulties your child is experiencing? Which, ultimately, is more inconvenient, losing the screen-time status quo or having a child who rages, who can’t focus enough to learn, or who drives others away because of behaviors? What about the inconvenience of not sleeping at night because you’re worried, of endlessly driving to fruitless appointments,