Warning : This document is still a draft
TV Lobotomy
TV has disastrous effect on the brain. But few people want to deal with it to protect themselves and their families. How would you behave if someone told you, “you are a bad mother/father because you let your children watch TV?” Autodefense is to refute this claim, to accept TV, to plead for it. This book is about the impact of TV on humanity.
Introduction
This book discusses the effects of TV on children and adults.
The various statements are heavily documented (more than 1,000 scientific references).
The author’s ironic tone gives the book a lively style, and he is strongly opposed to TV because of the facts he presents.
The book ends with his advice on “Should we watch a little TV?”—a question frequently asked at the end of his talks.
Beyond the facts about TV, the book helps us understand issues related to education.
One point I appreciated explains partially why “well‑educated people” tend to have “well‑educated children,” and why the same pattern holds for modest and poor families.
Table of Contents
Book Introduction
The introduction is a big summary of all problems related to TV.
The details are presented in the next chapters.
The main points are listed, without proper order or explicit relationships.
Many people say that TV is great because it connects you with the world, lets you learn things, and helps you form your own opinion from the presented facts.
Two problems stand out:
- There are countless advertisers who know how the brain works and how to sell you tobacco and junk food.
- Programs are designed to present a specific angle; they are not “all possible opinions,” but a single view intended to shape your thinking.
People often imagine Africa and some Asian countries as uniformly poor, where children do not go to school, lack shoes, and starve. This is a classic “wrong” image of the world. The reality is far better (see Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World by Hans Rosling, an excellent introduction to common misconceptions).
We have known for years that TV makes people dull and manipulates opinions, yet people keep watching it.
People do not want to appear as the has‑been of the group, the one who isn’t aware of the latest episode of a series. Some think reality TV is a way to climb the social ladder.
Parents who cannot protect their children from TV refuse to accept the harsh truth that “TV is not good for children—or adults.” They do not want to feel like bad parents, so they forget and stop trying to protect their kids.
Children are attracted to foods they have seen advertised. Teenagers start to starve themselves after seeing diet ads and actresses with very thin legs, leading to depression.
People also mistakenly believe that journalism is a science.
On TV, the Milgram experiment is often revisited: instead of a scientist ordering you to administer shocks, a TV presenter can achieve the same effect.
One hour of TV per day reduces IQ by about 0.75–1.43 points. That may not sound like much, but consider how many hours you actually watch. Other screens—smartphones, tablets, consoles—are also factors, along with a poor diet, stressful environment, etc.
Correlations have been found between TV and obesity, violence/aggressive behavior, lack of concentration, and lower educational attainment.
There are inductive problems (what TV leads to), such as addiction to tobacco, alcohol, unsafe sex, and prohibitive problems (what TV prevents), such as language development and physical activity.
Watching is not practicing: even if you listen to many well‑known speakers, you never learn to speak like them.
One hour per day for children aged 8–16 months reduces language acquisition by about 10 %, regardless of program type (cooking shows, games, movies, “educational” programs, etc.). If you place a child with a native speaker, even without understanding any words, the child will pick up sounds. Put the child in front of a video of the same speaker talking alone, and no learning occurs. The time is lost.
Over a year, the cumulative loss is substantial. For a 15‑year‑old teenager, the average is 3 h 40 min per day (the book was published in 2011, but now smartphones add more screen time). That represents roughly 75 % of free time—about 1,338 h per year, or 56 full days.
TV Anywhere Anytime
The TV Era
TV had the fastest adoption rate: in 7 years, coverage rose from 5 % to 75 % of the population, whereas radio took 14 years, and other technologies took much longer.
TV is the new “clock”: two‑thirds of people eat in front of the TV, a 12‑hour meal, and at 20:00 during the news.
Do you learn something? Sometimes. Everyone knows about Rambo, but one‑quarter of young Americans cannot name Hitler, and many UK youths do not know Churchill.
Because not everyone in a household likes the same program, TV becomes a source of tension. To solve the problem, each member gets his or her own TV in the bedroom, which only increases viewing time.
It is observed that most children with learning difficulties have a TV in their bedroom. This leads to less physical activity, fewer social interactions, poorer food habits, and reduced sleep.
Now the Internet is replacing TV for many young people, but not entirely. They use the Internet to watch TV replays and movies, so it remains “TV‑time.” The myth of “super‑teens” who can multitask—doing homework while watching TV, texting, and chatting—does not hold up. Children today do not outperform past generations; they are not super‑human.
Parents Encourage Children to Watch TV
Very young children do not ask for TV on their own; parents introduce it first. In front of the TV, children sit still and quiet, which pleases parents because they can attend to other tasks uninterrupted.
Ironically, 85‑90 % of parents are concerned about TV—not the watching time, but the programs. They fear their child might see sexual content. Some parents had “no choice” but to let their children watch TV; now they regret it and find it hard to turn back. Only about 20 % of parents control viewing time, and control decreases as children age.
Watching Time – Everybody Lies
Parents consistently underestimate how much TV their children watch: they report 1 h 30 min instead of the actual 2 h 30 min. This is due partly to a lack of supervision and partly to cognitive bias. Consequently, most think their children watch less than other kids.
People often claim they prefer documentaries to TV shows, yet audience data show TV shows dominate.
TV program quality is very low. There are two approaches:
- Target a specific segment of the population with a particular opinion, mindset, or education level.
- Produce mainstream content of low quality that anyone can watch without feeling left out.
The second option is overwhelmingly chosen, pulling the intellectual level of programming down to the lowest common denominator.
TV Stifles Intelligence
The Academic Level Is Decreasing on All Sides
There is a continuous trend of declining student performance in writing, speaking, and thinking. Some attribute this to new pedagogical methods, which are indeed less effective in some cases, but TV also plays a role.
Students now make many more grammatical mistakes than in the past, and they know fewer complex words. French baccalauréat statistics (see les perles du bac) illustrate the increase in errors per line. Scores on exams from 40 years ago are dramatically higher.
Mainstream Channels – Poor Vocabulary Set
Language depletion prevents people from expressing themselves and thinking clearly. If you don’t know the word “revolution,” you cannot even contemplate the concept. A speech with very few words, accessible to everyone, was characteristic of Hitler’s rhetoric—it could be understood by anyone, not just an elite.
When you lack the words to express yourself, it feels like being in a foreign country where you don’t speak the language.
Language depletion leads to less precision. Generic terms that cover many meanings prevent accurate description:
- homeless vs. hobo, tramp, beggar
- person with a psychiatric disorder vs. psychopath, depressive, suicidal, bipolar, narcissistic, pervert, anorexic girl
These generic labels obscure the true problem. “Psychopath” does not imply “suicidal” or “anorexic.” It is easy to shortcut nuances by calling someone “sick.”
Some argue that a few more grammatical errors are not a problem because children will learn technology anyway. Yet most adults still use only basic digital skills—gaming, watching videos, sending e‑mails and messages—nothing “exciting” or high‑level. They often cannot filter information; if something appears in the top five Google results, they assume it is true. Young people struggle to distinguish fact from opinion and to judge whether a fact is real or fake.
A test that measures language understanding, the SAT‑V, showed scores dropping from 550 to 500 about 15 years after TV became widespread (mid‑1960s). Canadian experiments comparing cities that received TV at different times found a sharp decline in academic performance two years after TV introduction.
Common Counter‑Arguments
- Educative programs would have no negative impact—or even a positive one.
- Reverse causality: children with poor performance tend to watch more TV.
- Effects are negligible.
For the first point, children rarely watch truly educational programs; they prefer movies and shows. Even if a teacher can captivate 25 children, a TV program is unlikely to be more effective without individual adaptation.
Regarding the second point, the Canadian experiment controls for reverse causality. Moreover, TV degrades sleep quality, and poor sleep lowers academic performance. Removing TV improves sleep and academic outcomes.
Watching or Looking?
Reading good literature improves language, but not all books are equal. “Naruto” will not spark a philosophical discussion, whereas classics will. Encouraging a child to read a little increases the likelihood they will read more as an adult, continuously expanding their vocabulary.
TV values oppose those of school:
- Social climbing without effort
- Instant consumption
These values clash with what is needed for long‑term success.
Zapping syndrome: children cannot focus on a single task.
Because TV sequences change rapidly, children do not learn to maintain attention for long periods. They need frequent stimulation, which they lack when doing a sustained exercise.
Additionally, when left alone in front of the TV, children cannot see the relationship between sequences—the global story. They think “horizontally” (fragmented scenes) rather than “vertically” (big picture). This fragmented memory impairs working memory. If you try to prepare pasta while a TV show interrupts you, you lose your planning thread and may forget essential steps.
Baby TV programs claim to develop the infant’s brain by providing new visual and auditory stimuli, but they neglect tactile, olfactory, and interactive experiences. Mimicry without feedback does not lead to learning.
Experiments comparing three conditions—educational TV alone, educational TV plus parents, and parents with a word list—showed the best results when parents taught the words, and the worst when only TV was used.
Social Background
Children’s outcomes depend heavily on environment. Studies of adopted vs. non‑adopted children, or of poor children placed in high‑quality nurseries, show that genetics play a minor role; the stimulating environment matters most. Whether a child from a wealthy family watches TV or a child from a modest family does not change the effect of TV. The difference lies in access to enriching activities (toys, books, extracurriculars) and parental language skills.
Imagination
Reading a book and watching a movie of the same story engage imagination differently. With a book, readers must construct characters’ faces and settings; a movie provides concrete images that can inhibit the reader’s imagination later. The same applies to music: listening to a song allows you to imagine the artist, while watching a music video fixes a visual image.
TV and Health
Obesity and Smoking
TV also contributes to many diseases. Sitting on the couch for hours burns few calories. People tend to snack while watching, and because the activity is only mildly cognitive, satiety arrives later. Children, especially, are highly receptive to advertisements and often request processed, sugary foods.
Indirectly, TV promotes other health risks, most notably smoking. In movies, smokers are frequently portrayed as attractive, successful, and socially powerful. Experiments show that exposure to smoking scenes increases the likelihood of smoking among viewers (e.g., Leonardo DiCaprio’s characters smoke more than Tom Cruise’s).
Sex in the TV
Sexual content in movies and series has become more common and often trivialized. Two main problems arise:
- Female stereotypes: the heroine is usually a beautiful, non‑educated woman (nurse, stay‑at‑home mother) with little contribution to the plot.
- Casual sex portrayal: sexual encounters are shown as consequence‑free one‑night affairs between strangers, with no discussion of protection, pregnancy risk, or STDs.
These portrayals can lower the age of first sexual activity by 2–3 years and contribute to body‑image issues, such as anorexia and low self‑esteem, because many actresses suffer from eating disorders.
Sleep
With TV, bedtime often shifts later—people stay up to finish a program. Combined with other factors (e.g., household responsibilities), this leads to sleep deprivation, which raises the risk of numerous diseases and reduces cognitive performance.
TV and Violence
Violent content abounds in movies, news, and even cartoons. Violence is often presented as a legitimate means to achieve goals (e.g., James Bond). The negative consequences—remorse, injury, hospitalization, or moral reflection—are rarely shown. Consequently, frequent viewers develop a higher tolerance for violence and may deem acts like rape less severe, sometimes even blaming the victim.
There is also a “dark‑world effect” from news coverage of violence: constant exposure makes people think the world is far more dangerous than it is, increasing fear and avoidance of public spaces.
Summary of This Book
The book outlines the numerous observed effects of TV on the brain and health:
- Attention: TV is designed to capture attention; background TV disrupts tasks and hampers deep focus, especially for children learning to concentrate.
- Early Education: Educational programs are insufficient without interaction and feedback from an adult.
- Language: Vocabulary used on TV is poor, limiting language enrichment; passive watching does not teach a language.
- Health: TV displaces physical activity, contributing to obesity; it pushes bedtime later, causing sleep deprivation that impairs cognition.
- Worldview: Advertising, movies, and lobbying shape a distorted image of the world—idealized bodies, glamorous smoking, and trivialized sex—leading to additional problems such as tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and risky sexual behavior.
Overall, the book argues that TV’s pervasive presence has far‑reaching negative consequences for individuals and society.
>> You can subscribe to my mailing list here for a monthly update. <<