The makers, however, are brilliant in the way that fishing fly makers are brilliant - the videos attract the parents.
When my friend Molly had her first baby, she was showing the kid the Baby Einstein videos and asked my opinion. I told her - the American Pediatric Association reccomends no television at all for children under two, and very limited for older than that. And then I told her my theory about Baby Einstein videos = fishing flies.
She got off the phone quickly and hardly spoke to me for a week. I guess that was the wrong thing to say to a new parent.
However, I wasn't wrong. Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wants me to log in. I don't think they are educational, but as entertainment I think they are better than some things kids could be watching. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find they lower IQ.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, my pediatrician didn't need this study to say the same thing. Nice to have it confirmed by research, though.
There is some evidence that listening to music, especially classical music, is good for babies. Flickering images on the boob tube, no.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:US scientists say watching "educational" DVDs with titles such as Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby does not help a baby's linguistic development. What is more, overuse may slow infants aged eight to 16 months as they develop a vocabulary.
A study published this week in the Journal of Pediatrics showed that, for every hour per day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants understood an average of six to eight fewer words than infants who did not watch them.
Well, yeah. Their theory is that babies have the capacity to learn any language, and the original video had alphabets and counting in 5 different languages. The effect I would anticipate would be to delay specialization. I do think the music is good, and the videos of animals are good. Videos of cool toys is fun, but basically commercial in its nature. I think if watching the toy gets the kid to sit through the music, there might be benefit to that.
But since putting the video in generally causes the caregiver to leave the room in the interest of sanity...
By the way, I really like Barney videos.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: the videos of animals are good. Videos of cool toys is fun, but basically commercial in its nature. I think if watching the toy gets the kid to sit through the music, there might be benefit to that.
Really? For a 12-month-old? Or a six-month-old? They really do not need to be watching videos of any kind -- there's a reason the AAP recommends against it.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: By the way, I really like Barney videos.
Oh, let's not get started on those. Regardless of whether you think they're good, or realize they are awful, manipulative, emotionally-stunting tripe, I hope we can agree they are in no way appropriate for an under-two.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what counts for baby watching tv? I sometimes have the tv on while baby and I play on the floor. She seems oblivious to it. Of course, when her daddy plays video games, she is intrigued. She looks at the screen and grabs the controller and pushes buttons.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's great if there are kids who never watch any videos. I also think it's great if there are adults who never eat chocolate. And I've had people try to tell me there are actually benefits to eating chocolate.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our kids have loved Baby Einstein. They grow out of them quickly, but when they're little they love them. I think the problem is letting the TV babysit your kids all day, not necessarily the individual videos. We allow our kids about 1 hour of TV a day and I really don't think that it stunts their development. It's a good break for them and a great break for Mommy and Daddy.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though I let my son watch TV, and have let him watch some TV for many months now, I am offended by a product TARGETED at 2 and under because, as you say, it's not a good idea to let them watch.
I won't defend the 1-2 hours a day my son and I spend watching TV (he's 20 months, btw). It's an awful thing to do. It's just addictive and I can't seem to break my own habit. I put in sing alongs and heavily musical movies for background noise. It's so quiet in this house with just the 2 of us.
scholar -- I don't know how old your kids are. I had the TV on my son's whole life. When he was a newborn I'd need something to entertain me while he needed to be constantly held and nursed. He didn't care at all about it until he was at least 10 months old, and then he would usually still play while he was watching. He still alternates between playing and watching anytime the TV on. I suspect that's a normal pattern for a child his age and that the fact that the TV is on is a bad idea. If the TV is on, I let it do the talking and I am not doing the appropriate one on one interaction with my son.
I don't think I'll ever eliminate the TV in my house, although I am hoping to keep it to one sing along video a day (we like Sesame Street).
I guess it's like pooka said...people try to eliminate chocolate from their diet too. And I need to lose about 15 pounds. And exercise.
We do the best we can and hopefully in the end we won't screw our kids up too much. I feel that I've done some things very well with my son and hopefully the TV won't counteract all the rest too much.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe he's that old. I remember when he was born and I'm still dragging my novel around like an albatross.
I think another thing it's like is speeding on the highway. We all know it's bad, and some people argue that you have to or you'll get run down. Well, I've argued that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am willing to believe that TV is bad for babies, but why did these pediatricians reach that conclusion?
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fishing flies are scams? Designed for humans? Designed for fish? I'm unclear on your analogy here. Bad for fish? Bad for fishermen?
(I'm also not really sure that the videos are SCAMS. Scam implies something stronger than I think is happening here. "These videos are bunk and we KNOW they are bunk, but we'll sell them to gullible new parents, haha!" Is this something that is put forward in the article?)
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There is some evidence that listening to music, especially classical music, is good for babies. Flickering images on the boob tube, no.
I don't remember where I heard it, but I think this is junk science too. The study that originally tested this did it on college students, and the effect was very short-term.
edit: not that I think you shouldn't let your child grow up with an appreciation of good music Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the videos can be called scams because they are marketed as educational for babies and aren't. One t.v. commercial has a parent talking about how his baby is learning about the seasons by watching the videos and it shows him throwing silk leaves on a 6-month-old infant.
Aerin currently watches one episode (5-8 minutes) of Peep and the Big Wide World per day. This is because she is in the middle of a major separation anxiety phase and I need to leave the room sometimes. I have no illusions that she's learning anything and I don't think it's harming her development, either. And I need those 5-8 minutes badly.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My little one is only 7 months, so maybe things will change as she gets older. I actually have started watching less tv since she was born. We do "watch" the computer screen when I have her at work and need to do stuff. I put something moving on in the background and she sits on my lap while I type away. She has trouble being in her play pen sometimes and I can't work when she screams non stop.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lego and I recently watched a Baby Einstein movie for the first time. He loved it. Mind you, I watched it with him as if we were reading a book together. I would say the names of the animals just before the video did. He would point to the screen and try to say the names of the animals.
I have no illusions that this movie will make my child smarter. At the same time, he did learn something from it, and he enjoyed it. I see no problem with letting him watch it again occasionally.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There is some evidence that listening to music, especially classical music, is good for babies. Flickering images on the boob tube, no.
I don't remember where I heard it, but I think this is junk science too. The study that originally tested this did it on college students, and the effect was very short-term.
edit: not that I think you shouldn't let your child grow up with an appreciation of good music
Now you're going to make me do some research but I don't have time to do it today. The thing is, it's not classical music that helps it's any music that has complex harmonies. Which most modern music doesn't.
Anyway, a neighbor just about forced one of those classical Baby Einstein videos on me once and I watched it out of morbid curiosity. It was some of the worst compilations of what should have been good songs I ever heard.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that Baby Einstein videos make kids smarter-- but I don't think they are any more harmful than any other tv. And when you have to keep a 1 year old quiet on a plane, a portable dvd player with Baby Bach and Baby Mozart is a great way to do it and doesn't annoy the other passengers much. Also good for getting sick one-year-olds to lay down quietly for a while.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There is some evidence that listening to music, especially classical music, is good for babies. Flickering images on the boob tube, no.
I don't remember where I heard it, but I think this is junk science too. The study that originally tested this did it on college students, and the effect was very short-term.
edit: not that I think you shouldn't let your child grow up with an appreciation of good music
Well, actually there was a study done that PLAYING an instrument is good for kids, math ability in particular, but that's the closest I can come to "music is good for kids."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Led by Frederick Zimmerman and Dr. Dimitri Christakis, both at the University of Washington, the research team found that with every hour per day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants learned six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos. These products had the strongest detrimental effect on babies 8 to 16 months old, the age at which language skills are starting to form. "The more videos they watched, the fewer words they knew," says Christakis. "These babies scored about 10% lower on language skills than infants who had not watched these videos."
It's not the first blow to baby videos, and likely won't be the last. Mounting evidence suggests that passive screen sucking not only doesn't help children learn, but could also set back their development. Last spring, Christakis and his colleagues found that by three months, 40% of babies are regular viewers of DVDs, videos or television; by the time they are two years old, almost 90% are spending two to three hours each day in front of a screen. Three studies have shown that watching television, even if it includes educational programming such as Sesame Street, delays language development. "Babies require face-to-face interaction to learn," says Dr. Vic Strasburger, professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics. "They don't get that interaction from watching TV or videos. In fact, the watching probably interferes with the crucial wiring being laid down in their brains during early development." Previous studies have shown, for example, that babies learn faster and better from a native speaker of a language when they are interacting with that speaker instead of watching the same speaker talk on a video screen. "Even watching a live person speak to you via television is not the same thing as having that person in front of you," says Christakis.
posted
I'm not sure that that conclusion is valid, either.
Isn't it likely that kids who are watching that much television are also not getting adequate face-to-face interaction such as reading with parents, playing with siblings, or even just being carried around and talked to while mom works? So tv itself might not be the problem; it might be that the watching tv interferes with what they should be doing. It might be more correct to say, "Children who do not get adequate face-to-face social interaction with family members are delayed in their language development. TV watching is a significant reason that children do not get this crucial interaction."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't it likely that kids who are watching that much television are also not getting adequate face-to-face interaction such as reading with parents, playing with siblings, or even just being carried around and talked to while mom works? So tv itself might not be the problem; it might be that the watching tv interferes with what they should be doing.
If these are reputable studies, they almost definitely controlled for that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't it likely that kids who are watching that much television are also not getting adequate face-to-face interaction such as reading with parents, playing with siblings, or even just being carried around and talked to while mom works? So tv itself might not be the problem; it might be that the watching tv interferes with what they should be doing.
If these are reputable studies, they almost definitely controlled for that.
I doubt that, actually. I'm not even sure how you'd control for that.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the research team found that with every hour per day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants learned six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos.
The only way I can see that they would control for that is to put the kids in a silent room alone during the time the other kids were watching the videos. Otherwise it is likely they were getting social interaction.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which would show that social interaction is better than Baby Einstein, and surely that's all the study needs to show?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They likely used regression analysis, which can control for those factors by things like including other socialization time as a factor in the equation being fitted.
Adding other factors increases the possible error, but it does not mean the situation can't be analyzed. It is tricky, though, and it does not necessarily determine a causative factor, though it would be possible to arrange a situation where causation could be inferred.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they already established that social interaction is better than tv. But from that they can't assert that tv in itself damages language development without first seeing if kids who had no social interaction but no tv during that time learned words at the same rate or faster.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But from that they can't assert that tv in itself damages language development without first seeing if kids who had no social interaction but no tv during that time learned words at the same rate or faster.
posted
I am just awfully tired of both sides of the question. I am tired of people watching the shows that will make their children smarter, and I am tired of people telling me tv will make them dumber.
My daughter loved Barney. She loved Disney movies, and memorized them, acting out scenes at various times, usually in public, usually loud, and usually the rather horrible parts. She is brilliant. She is an amazing trombone player. She is sweet and good, and has loved school since before she went.
My son was addicted to Thomas the Tank Engine: videos, tv show, books, bedspread, trains, spoon, and bowl, clothing, Halloween costume. He is also brilliant, plays a mean guitar, and is a superb athlete.
I think we did OK.
I really think KQ hit the nail on the head. TV takes time away from being with your kids. Make sure you are with your kids.
On the other hand, some parents need a break, or they will go insane. So, it is OK to let your kids be happy watching tv for a while.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, MrSquicky, they're welcome to assert it but I won't believe it.
I have kids. I have seen how important time with other people is to their development. I am not sure that kids stuck in a room with toys and no interaction except when they needed to be fed or changed would do any better than kids stuck in front of a tv and no interaction except when they need to be fed or changed.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, also, I'm with Elizabeth. I let my kids watch a limited amount of tv sometimes. Not excessive, and we spend lots of time playing together and reading books and going for walks and talking about what we see and they "help" me with whatever I'm doing when I cook or do laundry or whatever. But I don't think tv in moderation is complete evil that's going to fry my kids' brains.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
As a non-parent, I think the whole thing is funny. I have no doubt that if I did have kids, I'd occasionally plop them in front of the television while I did my own thing. How often "occasionally" might occur I don't know, but I suspect it would be more often than once a week.
I like the conversation, though, because I think it's important to remember that it is a convenience, an occasional, a stop-gap, the equivelent of candy. Candy isn't evil, either, but it's important to remember that it isn't actually food.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Okay, MrSquicky, they're welcome to assert it but I won't believe it.
I have kids. I have seen how important time with other people is to their development. I am not sure that kids stuck in a room with toys and no interaction except when they needed to be fed or changed would do any better than kids stuck in front of a tv and no interaction except when they need to be fed or changed.
Actually, between the two terrible options, I'd have to venture a guess that the TV is still worse. TV doesn't just take time away from interaction. It also takes time away from exploring, touching, testing, and doing. Right now my son is attempting to get a square peg in a round hole. Won't work, right? He'll figure it out sooner or later. If I turn on the TV he may not get the chance. Interaction isn't the only way he learns. In fact, my son is pretty independent and not too big on interaction. He's much bigger on moving and problem solving.
But children, especially young children, do not learn from having images and sound blasted at them, filling their senses.
TV also has the trouble of creating the couch potato who doesn't move and therefore gets fat.
It has also been shown to be bad on vision...especially peripheral vision because you're spending so much time focused on one point.
(I'm not flip flopping...I just see both sides of this issue...everything in moderation, right?)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an issue as to whether or not under 2 year olds watching TV delays language development by taking time away from other things only or if there is some harmful aspect of television itself. I honestly don't know. I haven't read the research.
These people (assuming that the presentation here is accurate) are claiming that it is at least partially due to television exposure itself. There are actually ways of showing this and if they are going to make a claim like that, a reputable journal is going to make sure that they have done one of them.
---
I'm not really sure what Elizabeth or kq's latest posts have to do with that though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, I find it is easier to have a discussion if I confine my rebuttals to what people have said in the conversation.
Although I seem to have replicated the event in the opening post. I'm guessing this is why Molly didn't talk to me for a week. Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eh, I find it is easier to have a discussion if I confine my rebuttals to what people have said in the conversation.
I was responding to
quote:I am just awfully tired of both sides of the question. I am tired of people watching the shows that will make their children smarter, and I am tired of people telling me tv will make them dumber.
I was agreeing with her.
So thank you for that.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I don't know, based on this sentence:
quote:the research team found that with every hour per day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants learned six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos.
The only way I can see that they would control for that is to put the kids in a silent room alone during the time the other kids were watching the videos. Otherwise it is likely they were getting social interaction.
I would guess, given the rules for research with human subjects, that study was more likely to involve doing a survey asking about time spent on various activities including TV/video, testing language development and then correlating the results, correcting for other variables.
I would be surprised if the people doing the study had children watch TV as part of the study.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that is how most studies with human subjects are conducted, they generally figure a margin of error into the equations. Assuming it is a reputable group doing the research, it is probably as accurate as any behavior = result study would be.
Ethically that is how that type of research usually has to be done. For example, if someone were doing a study on obesity and junk food, they could ask about the kid's diet and look at the results; they couldn't put kid's on an all junk food diet to see what happens.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if watching the toy gets the kid to sit through the music, there might be benefit to that.
You can put a CD (any CD) on while they're playing, painting, drawing, eating etc. This is not something you require a screen for. The child doesn't have to "sit and listen" to hear it.
I also find background music helps children concentrate on the task at hand. It can also make housework way much more fun.
I don't think music is a miracle cure for bringing your child up well, but I do know that playing a great variety of music and thus getting your child used to all kinds of music helps them become open-minded, educated and musically sensitive adults.
It seems obvious to me that parking your child in front of a screen instead of talking to them and interacting with them in a flexible, realistic manner is detrimental to their learning. There's nothing wrong with a bit of tv now and then, especially since it's a fairly staple part of our culture, but if you're hoping it will teach them to talk and to learn better than you can, you're probably out of luck.
I do think that trying to use television as a substitute for real interaction in the human world at the crucial ages of say 0-3 is probably damaging to the crucial learning and brain-pathway creating that goes on in that time. I should imagine that showing your baby tv is just like leaving them in a blank room for the same amount of time right at the crucial time when they need to develop their brains the most.
I certainly don't hate television, I love television shows.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
