quote:Autism is currently estimated to affect approximately one in every 166 children, yet the cause or causes of the condition are not well understood. One of the current theories concerning the condition is that among a set of children vulnerable to developing the condition because of their underlying genetics, the condition manifests itself when such a child is exposed to a (currently unknown) environmental trigger. In this paper we empirically investigate the hypothesis that early childhood television viewing serves as such a trigger. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ American Time Use Survey, we first establish that the amount of television a young child watches is positively related to the amount of precipitation in the child’s community. This suggests that, if television is a trigger for autism, then autism should be more prevalent in communities that receive substantial precipitation. We then look at county-level autism data for three states – California, Oregon, and Washington – characterized by high precipitation variability. Employing a variety of tests, we show that in each of the three states (and across all three states when pooled) there is substantial evidence that county autism rates are indeed positively related to county-wide levels of precipitation. In our final set of tests we use California and Pennsylvania data on children born between 1972 and 1989 to show, again consistent with the television as trigger hypothesis, that county autism rates are also positively related to the percentage of households that subscribe to cable television. Our precipitation tests indicate that just under forty percent of autism diagnoses in the three states studied is the result of television watching due to precipitation, while our cable tests indicate that approximately seventeen percent of the growth in autism in California and Pennsylvania during the 1970s and 1980s is due to the growth of cable television. These findings are consistent with early childhood television viewing being an important trigger for autism. We also discuss further tests that can be conducted to explore the hypothesis more directly.
I wonder if this will turn out to be true. Would it make a difference in the amount of television parents let children watch?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a way it doesn't surprise me. Staring at a screen and letting your mind wander away from the real world has got to do something in your head, especially while the brain is still not fully developed.
I wonder if alzheimer's is related in that regard. My grandfather came down with it, and after retirement (other then drinking at the Legion and VFW) he just sat around and watched tv all day.
I doubt its something electrical or radioactive. I think its just the part of your mind that takes over when you are watching tv.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe it at all, even as someone who is critical of television as baby sitter. Autism is detected a few years after birth - long before children are exposed to "too much" television. Not only that, but there would be a widespread consistancy and not slow development of numbers. The best that could be determined by this is that cable television causes genetic changes in parents who give birth to an increasing number of Autistic children.
By the way, is precipitation a scientific term or is it supposed to be participation?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The best that could be determined by this is that cable television causes genetic changes in parents who give birth to an increasing number of Autistic children.
Genetics does not work this way. If a parent loses a hand as an adult, they are not more likely to give birth to a kid without a hand. Unless you are saying that television emits radiation which changes the actual DNA, it doesn't matter how much television the parents watch.
Did you read the study at all? Autism is diagnosed at around age 2-3, which is also the time that brain development is occurring. The timing works exactly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this study is so flawed it's hard to know where to begin. (And I say this as someone who thinks kids on average watch WAY too much television, and doesn't allow her kids to watch any.)
Actually, yes I do. Because rain/snow/sleet are likely to result in kids being indoors, therefor states with high levels of precipitation are likely to have higher rates of kid TV watching?!? Yeesh, what were they SMOKING!? Also likely to have higher rates of reading, scrapbooking, and whining that they're bored, but I don't see them attempting to correlate any of THOSE with autism!
This study is an absolutely classic example of shoot-first-draw-the-bulls-eye-later pseudoscience.
There may be a link. But this study does nothing to prove one. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the study. I still don't buy it. There would have to be more scientific studies of WHY this is the case. Otherwise, its no more than a questionable statistics analysis.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's weird that this study is coming out of the business management school, when Cornell already has perfectly good medical and human development programs...?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
A) They study places where it rains a lot so kids go inside.
B) They compare some pre-picked states to see how many kids get autism and how many houses have cable.
C) There is some statistical rates showing the number of autistic children somehow relates to the number of cable televisions.
Therefore(not checking what households actually have cable or what children actually watch it) they determine there is a connection. At best it is a thin study that needs a much closer look.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slate published an article reviewing the cornell study <edit>here is the Slate review</edit>. Then users laid the smack down about it being lousy science. Here are the slate-compiled "best of" why this is lousy science.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have no idea how many times I kept looking at the word "precipitation" and wondering what in Hades it had to do with autism . . . . . . and then wondering if there were some alternative use of the word that I had somehow missed after all these years.
It is really very crappy science -- and I work in the ECE field and would love some conclusive (really conclusive) evidence to support my belief that as little to no TV as possible is for the best all the way around . . .
Ah well. It was an eye-catching, coffee-snorting moment, to be sure. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The impression I'm getting is that this Slate writer Easterbrook wants to make a connection between autism and television, and is using this otherwise throw-away paper by a bunch of MBA's as cannon fodder. His constant references to the "Cornell study" and the "Researchers at Cornell University" are laughable from the perspective of someone who's been around the campus for way too long now, and knows the difference between Research and speculation. I very much doubt that anyone in the Johnson School of Business Management intended to position themselves as a leader in autism and early development research.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just emailed the link to my best friend, who is getting her Ph.D. in Psychology. Her specialty is autism and she's worked in the field for 10 years now (she already has a masters).
From my discussions with Cara, I can say that though autism is usually diagnosed around 2 (and it's getting earlier all the time), it's present from birth. There are studies being done (by acutal psychologists who are experts in the field) that show that babies with autism do everything differently - not just the bonding stuff. They're currently working on how babies with autism roll over differently.
It's so interesting to me how people cling to misconceptions about autism despite the lack of scientific proof. There is no clinical evidence that vaccinations or gluten have anything to do with autism, yet parents delay or refuse vaccinations and put their children on gluten-free diets. One thing that Cara also told me is that there are solid, promising studies being done that show that advanced maternal age probably is a factor (along with genetics). Apparently, this research is problematic because the researchers and their backers (sponsors? - the folks who pay for it) know that it will not be well-received by people who want to delay having children.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds to me, from the study, that Rain causes Autism. Just to be safe I'd keep that dangerous Water stuff away from all juveniles. Let them stay dirty and to drink, well, wine, vodka, Jack Daniels. No reason to take unnecesary chances with what could be "Rain water"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does remind me of the study conducted by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Basically the the decline in pirate correlates with the increase of global warming.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the very first things I was taught in every science class - hard science, natural science, and social science - that I've ever taken is that correlation does not necessarily show causation. Apparently the folks who did this study never took any of those classes.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the authors of the study addressed the issue that if you have a more difficult to engage child (say, one with an underlying neuroprocessing disorder), then using the television as a babysitter might become much more appealling.
That is to say, not only is there the possible issue of conflating correlation with causation, but the direction of the causative arrow might also be debatable.
Edited to add: Perhaps when it is becoming progressively harder to engage your child in productive and pleasant interpersonal interactions (playing games, singing songs, sharing tasks, etc.), you are more likely to plunk your kid in front of the television and hope for a few minutes of quiet time for yourself.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on most of the crud on TV nowadays, I'd say they have it backwards. Autism causes television.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Just thought it applied to conversation. I think in the end, the answer will be far from just a leads to b, but will be like if a exists and exposed to c, d or e while x then b.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't saying it is a sole cause, it is saying it might be a major contributor. There is a difference between the two.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly. But given the horrible statistical nonsense, it is actually saying absolutely nothing.
Except that some people have an agenda, and are trying to push it. I detest and loathe pseudoscience like this.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But kids are so young when they are (usually) diagnosed with autism, most kids aren't exposed to much tv at all by that point. It just makes it seem so unlikely that it's a major contributor.
Especially when all the other factors are weighed in.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, this study may be bad science. It doesn't prove a connection, but a connection is still a possibility. I could only wish that two is too young to have accumulated hours and days and weeks of television viewing time.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
But, to to counter a few comments made in this thread, there's a lot of good research that goes on in business schools that are not directly related to what the average person would consider "business." I've seen some brillant health economics stuff done on disease movement and AIDS policy in Africa
And business schools train more than MBA's - some of the best economists, operations research specialists, financial analysts, and sociologists (org behavior) come out of business schools' Phd tracks.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: a connection is still a possibility.
But highly unlikely. Most medical professionals and others with professional experience with autistic kids agree that it is almost certainly genetic.
This just smells so much of "blame the parents." Back in the 60s and 70s it was accepted that autism and schizophrenia (and other mental disorders) came from lousy mothering. Now that it has been proven otherwise, we have to find another way to blame parents for autism?
There are so many legitimate reasons to encourage parents not to allow their kids to watch lots of TV. Why do we have to push the ones that are garbage?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was more willing to believe the study that said that tv time may be a contributing factor in ADHD. But then that was debunked, too, so...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure Easterbrook (who should really just stick to his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column) loves that he scored a mention in the footnotes of the study. Something about that seems so bush league.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There are so many legitimate reasons to encourage parents not to allow their kids to watch lots of TV. Why do we have to push the ones that are garbage?
This is a real concern for me, too. Once we push pseudoscience (or incorrectly-done science) "just in case" or because it seems support a conclusion we agree with,* then when the debunking occurs, the truth gets lost in the shuffle.
After all, it seems that most people still believe that wooden cutting boards harbor fewer bacteria than plastic ones. Very few people heard (and noted) the retractions later.
(*Not saying that you are doing this, katharina. I understand that you find it interesting, and I agree it could be a useful basis for generating hypothesis to test further. I do worry about how this study is being presented, though.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Once we push pseudoscience (or incorrectly-done science) "just in case" or because it seems support a conclusion we agree with, then when the debunking occurs, the truth gets lost in the shuffle.
posted
I am reminded of one of the earliest bits of science done by the Society For The Worship of Spaghetti Montsters ever did. The coorelated the outbreak of Syphillus in Nuns and Sailors. The overwhelming results proved that Syphillus was spread by the ocean.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's always so cute when econ people try to do real research. They don't have the first idea what they are doing, but man do they bring a lot of confidence (and statistics) to the table.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man...and I thought epidemiologists were dangerous.
Actually, ever since seeing Freakonomics, I've decided that economists need to spend time working in a "hard" science lab somewhere so they get a thorough grounding in methodology, experimental design, and proper use of inferential statistics.
At the end of, say a semester, we could issue them a large wall plaque that says "Correlation does not equal causation" and send them on their way.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correlation doesn't equal causation, but studies to unearth correlations can be terrifically useful to sift through the infinite number of possible hypotheses out there. They can give a feasible set of possibilities (more likely than a random set) to be tested further in a more rigorous way.
IMO, the problem isn't that purely correlation studies are done, but in how the popular media often presents the findings. The headlines almost always are misleading, in implication if not directly in content.
---
Edited to add: Of course, sometimes the study authors themselves draw unwarranted conclusions, but it seems to me to be a particular problem for the popular press.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
. . . and then wondering if there were some alternative use of the word that I had somehow missed after all these years. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I agree.
