She said it wasn't a big deal when this could be hurting people in academics.
I might have stumbled on a possible explanation: When I was learning a foreign language, I would listen to the news on a foreign language radio station. Afterwards, I would watch a news clip on the television station that owed both the radio and the television station. The story was the same. The broadcast company was the same. The editorial viewpoint was the same.
I was surprised at the difference in the way I received the story--my emotional reaction and my intellectual understanding. The TV story effected me much more viscerally than did the Radio story.
But what startled me, was the huge difference in word content. There was a drastic paucity of words per minute, of sentence complexity, and whole paragraphs were almost non-existent. In comparison, the radio story, completely reliant on words, sentences and paragraphs, was very dense. I would have to say that the though-density of the oral (radio) story was ten times that of the visual (TV) story.
I would only have noted this because my language skill in this language were rather poor at the time, and I had to struggle to understand the words and ideas.
6
Perhaps if we had better programs...
They were watching British TV!!! Another reason people bail out of that country in a NY minute.
There is a correlation/causation confusion in the article.
1
Nobody seems to have picked up on the fact that the tests
were done 6 years apart. At the ages of 67 and 73 there
could easily have been a decrease simply due to aging.
2
@Sarahsaffron I agree. That's a long time! They should've done them 6 months apart, not 6 years!
I’m wondering if reading subtitles with TV watching makes a difference. Or riding an exercise bicycle or using a treadmill while watching TV.
3
@Kathleen very interesting question
Whut?
1
@Greg Gerner
Very good comment. Whut?
Ride a bike and watch more TV? That one is good.
I have not had TV for 27 years. But wait, wait.
Why is TV all bad? Suppose we watch mainly news, public affairs shows, cspan and PBS documentaries with an occasional old movie with plenty of snappy dialogue?
And what's the effect of reading non fiction books and NYT articles, columns and comments? Listening to classical music and jazz?
Why does it have to be social and physical activities, and crosswards? Same old.
Aren't talk show stimulating for the brain? Comparing 1 opinion with another? Googling articles to find pro/con?
Reading these comments?
5
It would have been helpful if you had started with Ms. Fancourt's quote.
3
Could the causality run the other way? Watching too much TV is a symptom of cognitive decline?
17
I once read somewhere that the brain waves of a person watching TV resembled those of sleep. Enough said.
5
In the age of trump, we need to watch fun stuff sometimes, reality is frightening.
14
I am not sure how far this study is correct but I can say one thing for sure I get frustrated if I happen to watch TV continuously for three hours a day. I tell you why I feel so.
1. The Indian news channels endlessly repeat the same stories time and again with unnecessary breaking news and ads in between not that American news is that great. However I watch BBC, CNN regularly along with the Indian news channels for sheer variety and for updating as to what’s happening in the rest of the world. So I make switchovers frequently.
2. I hate to watch Indian regional TV serials which are mostly based on horrible characters.
3. I hardly watch any movie on TV mainly because of ads in between.
If we watch TV continuously for hours together in a day, it’s definitely strain not only on our eyes but on our brains as well.
3
This "study" needs to be much more thorough. If you are watching the Kardashians or daytime soaps then yes - your brain will rot at any age. But if you are watching science shows, documentaries, or good theater (ever watched Shakespeare on PBS? The Hollow Crown?) - even a riveting sports event that you have to keep up with then no - I don't agree. Too wide a range of viewing habits to make such a general "3 +" hours a day guideline.
12
I find the opposite to be true.
My Mom is 89 this year and is "sharp as a tack". She outlived her husband, and lives alone, with fewer and fewer friends as she has outlived the ones she had.
The TV in her home is on a lot: news, NPR, documentaries, and science shows. OK, some soaps too. It keeps her mind active. When we talk, about once a week, we discuss current events. She's up on everything that's going on in the US and around the world [I travel internationally for my work].
15
@OSS Architect
Yes, but look what she's watching. No wonder she is preserving her brain power.
We don't have cable TV, but even the channels we get are mostly foul. If I'm lucky, there's a documentary on PBS or an old "noir" movie on one of the other channels.
I promised myself that this winter that I'd watch "Victory at Sea," some bits of which I've seen of course. I have the DVD set.
But we had almost no winter.
5
The brain benefits much more from reading than from staring at the TV. Although you can learn from TV, your brain only needs to stare mindlessly at the screen while reading requires so much more of the brain's processing power, having to interpret words and the meanings behind them and then create the many thoughts and images that only reading can provide. As a recent article said in Psychology Today, reading is like mental gymnastics. Watch TV is mostly mental laziness.
22
Keeping track of the characters and plot twists of some tv shows requires careful attention, possibly checking notes.
Of course people would be better off socializing or engaging in a hobby. It gets harder to socialize as you look older and hobbies are out of fashion...
7
I’m sorry you feel that way however, speaking as a late 20 something I promise you the younger generations don’t care if you look “older” or your hobbies are “outdated”. We would love to get to know you and learn those hobbies. I have always treasured my friendships with older people one of the wittiest people I knew was a sweet woman in her 90s.
12
I've met many members of the "younger generation" who do not feel the way you do.
5
@Victoria Thank you for recognizing the value of getting to know people of all ages. When I was young I spent time on summer days with an aunt who was 60 years older than I. I learned so much about my family history and the world of the early 20th century....and how to make a handkerchief on a treadle sewing machine.
2
But what is cause and what is effect? Perhaps declining mental ability makes you more susceptible to sitting and watching TV. Or maybe some third condition exacerbates mental decline and TV watching.
16
I don’t know about Alzheimer cognitive results after lengthy television watching, but I saw quite clearly that my extremely intelligent father was approaching Alzheimer’s or senility when he began sitting in a chair watching hours of television - educational along with mindless pap. My siblings agreed and we did turn out to be correct.
19
Watching TV is the most exciting, interesting, and enriching thing I have ever done. It's so essential to my quality of life, that I really don't care what disadvantages it might have. I will keep watching 5, 10 or more hours of TV per day.
8
@jmck
Dear jmck: Though I've never been there, I'm assuming that Kansas City, Missouri has many attributes and sites to explore. However, if 'watching TV is the most exciting, interesting and enriching thing you have EVER done', well, so be it. I can only hope that you are not locked into one station only and that you consider 'Tucker and Jeanine' your best friends ever. If THAT turns out to be true then unfortunately you're case is...Terminal.
7
@david
Kansas City, Missouri is a liberal city. Nobody is watching Fox News here.
5
@jmck
..sharp as a tack! I love a quick come-back. You don't need my, or anyone's permission to sit in front of your TV. You go jmck, and keep on enjoying what you enjoy!
3