August 8, 2007 12:24 PM
Baby Einstein not-so-bright idea?
Here's another blow to the parents who think letting their kids watch educational videos gets them one step closer to Harvard.
Chris Barge reports:
Baby Einstein — the DVD and video line that turned its Centennial founder into a multimillionaire praised by President Bush — may hurt infants' language development, a study released this week has found.A team of Seattle scientists determined that the over-use of such productions may slow vocabulary acquisition for infants eight to 16 months of age.
The study found that, for every hour per day that infants watched baby videos and DVDs from such companies as "Baby Einstein" and "Brain Baby," they understood six to eight fewer words than infants who did not watch them.
"The results surprised us, but they make sense," added Andrew Meltzoff, co-director of UW's Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences and a co-author of the study. "There are only a fixed number of hours that young babies are awake and alert. If the 'alert time' is spent in front of DVDs and TV instead of with people speaking in 'parentese' — that melodic speech we use with little ones — the babies are not getting the same linguistic experience."
Julie Aigner-Clark, founder of Baby Einstein, told The Denver Post this week that parents and children were supposed to watch the videos together and interact with the images on the screen.
Have you used Baby Einstein or similar videos? Do they engage your children? Do you agree with the study's conclusions? Or do you let them watch soap operas and professional wrestling?
August 8, 2007
1:20 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
Teaching children the strenuous art of TV watching isn't the best of ideas.
August 8, 2007
1:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
Sure it is, it produces liberals. Without Puff Daddy telling them to vote or die they just wont know what to do. Aside from smoking bongs and taking marching orders from Rosie Odonell, your generation is lost
August 8, 2007
1:31 PM
jay writes:
"smoking bongs"
That's too funny.
Hey, what's the deal with the right's obsession with Rosie O'Donnell? I guess that goes for most of hollywood...what's the story there?
The vast majority of pro golfers are Republican...but you don't hear liberal talking heads ranting about Davis Love III do you?
Seriously...what is it about actors, comedians and rockstars gets you righties' panties in a wad?
August 8, 2007
1:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
Simple, they represent the stupidity that is the left. Look at Sean Penn, cant punch anyone else or he will spend a lot of time in jail, so he takes his anger out on idiotic causes, like supporting Hugo Chavez. Cameron Diaz and her famous "if you support the rape of women vote for Bush". Bout sums it up, they are rather dim like the majority of your part. Your only saving grace Jay is that you can repeat all the leftis propaganda you read and come off sounding half way intelligent about it. A fool none the less, but not a complete dunce like the majority of your fellow libs. Lets look at AM 760 for a second, he just makes you guys look pathetic. The dude cant even think for himself, he is a zombie of a radio station, every bit as bad as the Rush Limbaugh listener that thinks they know everything. And I am not a rightie, they are just as annoying, no sir, I am a South Park republican if you shall, and god knows they expose the idioticness of both sides plenty, sadly for you the left gets it a lot more cause there is so much more to make fun of coming from dolts like you
August 8, 2007
1:39 PM
MER writes:
What happened to reading to your kids, you know, pictures and words?
August 8, 2007
2:16 PM
jay writes:
I understand you guys like ranting about them....but why not up the intelligence quotient and actually rant about policy decisions or people on the hill who are actually involved in creating policy...you know...like people with educations tend to do.
Why do you care what P Diddy thinks about George Bush? I know that Toby Keith is a big fan of our foreign policy initiatives in the 21st century so far...and I could care less. You know why? Because he's a hillbilly country singer. Now the fact that John McCain is a fan of said policies actually does interest me...you know why? Because he's one of the most influential men in the country.
Understand the difference?
I guess I just find it comical how much time the far right spends obsessing about entertainers who don't share their myopic world viewpoint.
Take you for instance....you float around, anonymously and cowardly flaming people, but never actually put together two sentences that make a cogent, relevant, intellectually valid point about anything except which actor said this or which blogger said that.
It's almost as if you're as irrelevant to the country as your 28%'er bretheren. Do folks like you really matter anymore? You don't have the facilities to be a threat to anyone but yourself and your sadly predictable voting tendencies assure your chain will be yanked by the next far right wing yokel that gets on tv and tells you how to think.
I'd almost feel sorry for you if you weren't so dead set on making as ass out of yourself by blindly attacking those who disagree with you and being the perfect example of an intellectual Darwin award. You actually might be (or should be) too dumb to procreate. The irony there is that anyone of the "libs" on this site could turn you inside out intellectually...and you somehow think you're their "betters".
It's funny because you don't know what you don't know.
You know?
What am I saying...of course you don't.
But keep ranting...it's always good for a laugh.
Here's a real life Darwin Award story in your honor:
A Jay County man using a cigarette lighter to check the barrel of a muzzleloader was killed Monday night when the weapon discharged in his face, sheriff's investigators said.
Gregory, 19, died in his parents' rural Dunkirk home about 11:30 p.m. Investigators said Pryor was cleaning a .54-caliber muzzleloader that had not been firing properly. He was using the lighter to look into the barrel when the gunpowder ignited.
August 8, 2007
2:38 PM
benn writes:
haha, Anonymous just got owned.
August 8, 2007
2:40 PM
Your Generation is Senile writes:
They sure do love them some Hollywood sorts when it serves their purposes...
Ronny Raygun, Fred Thompson, Arnold...
Hypocritical?
August 8, 2007
2:55 PM
history buff writes:
I read that Chester A. Aruthur, who became President when Garfield was assassinated, and his wife used some sort of excellerated learning for their baby back in the 1870s or 1880s. The doctors at the time believed that the excellerated learning caused brain damage in the infant that led to the infant's death.
I'm glad when I entered kindergarten my brain and mind were ripe for learning. The first thing I had to unlearn was that the confederacy won the civil war. My grandmother made me believe that the South were the victors.
August 8, 2007
3:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
Ha Jay your to funny, 28% is still way higher then the 3% you libs have managed to serve up. Besides, there is no such thing as bad publicity. 28% approve of bush, 65% disapprove with 7% having no opinion. That means 93% of the country is always thinking about him, you cant buy publicicty like that you tool. And I have no idea whatever else you may have said, no one takes time to read your long winded diatribes
August 8, 2007
3:15 PM
Anonymous writes:
Are'n kids watch the pot grow, when they ain't playin' with the rotty.
August 8, 2007
3:27 PM
Rich Hulten writes:
jay
WOW!!!! That was a classic rant.
Me n' Dennis Miller are proud.
I can't argue.
Encore, encore
August 8, 2007
3:29 PM
benn writes:
Anonymous still = owned
I bet that anonymous will begin his/her slow disappearance from the RMN blogs.
August 8, 2007
3:55 PM
benn writes:
Still nothing intelligent out of the anonymous. Why don't you pick a name and hang around awhile?
I'm just going to start calling you Harry I think.
August 8, 2007
4:22 PM
Anonymous writes:
3:49 is just Harry Palm or one of his wannabe clones .... I'm not sure why he stopped using his moniker, but it might be because of the incessant crap he spewed and he got tired of taking ownership for it..... how pathetic is it that you stop using a posting name that's fake anyway? And he has some really anger issues, and should seek counseling for his views of women ... pretty damned disgusting dude that you would talk about anyone that way .... I hope your 400 pound girl friend kicks your ass for an extra hour tonight.
August 8, 2007
4:32 PM
Anonymous writes:
What you mean allowing Children to become robots in front of the TV doesn't make them smart?? They are not actually suggesting that parents read and spend time with their children are they???
August 9, 2007
7:21 AM
Anonymous writes:
" team of Seattle scientists determined that the over-use of such productions may slow vocabulary acquisition for infants eight to 16 months of age.
The study found that, for every hour per day that infants watched baby videos and DVDs from such companies as "Baby Einstein" and "Brain Baby," they understood six to eight fewer words than infants who did not watch them"
So now republicans want to use this to excuse Bush and his poor use of verbal skills as well as poor policy decisions. OK...
But remember , DVDs were not invented in those days
August 9, 2007
7:41 AM
just sayin' writes:
Jay, since you brought up Davis Love III I have to tell you why I think he is a putz. A few years ago he was playing in the finals of match play (getting kicked by Tiger) when someone in the crowd yelled "no Love" after he lost a hole. He pouted got upset made sure the spectator was removed. I certainly don't think a spectator should be rude at an event but not sure what bothered Love so much. After the match he said "This is the type of thing that George Bush is fighting for"...???? I guess we went into Iraq to stop spectators from harrassing Davis Love III during a golf match. Makes as much sense as the whole WMD thing. I used to respect Davis Love III for his golf game. Now I just think he is a putz.
August 9, 2007
9:56 AM
Enquiring minds wanna know writes:
"Hey, what's the deal with the right's obsession with Rosie O'Donnell? I guess that goes for most of hollywood...what's the story there?"
"I understand you guys like ranting about them....but why not up the intelligence quotient and actually rant about policy decisions or people on the hill who are actually involved in creating policy...you know...like people with educations tend to do.
Why do you care what P Diddy thinks about George Bush? I know that Toby Keith is a big fan of our foreign policy initiatives in the 21st century so far...and I could care less. You know why? Because he's a hillbilly country singer. Now the fact that John McCain is a fan of said policies actually does interest me...you know why? Because he's one of the most influential men in the country."
Understand the difference?" -Jay
Notthing wrong with these statements Jay. Why does anyone care what entertainers have to say about policy. Yet on the Van Halen post you give eleven quotes attributed to well known righty Ted Nugent (along with derisive comments). So Jay, why get upset when a righty uses Rosie or Sheehan quotes to paint lefties in a bad light and then do the exact same thing with the "Nugget" to subtly put forth the idea that he speaks for all righties? Just seems like an inconsistency in putting thought into practice.
August 9, 2007
10:02 AM
jay writes:
just sayin,
I'm right there with you. He's a putz. They did a piece on him for a show on the golf channel called Inside the PGA...and he's a complete jackass in real life...and apparently on the course as well.
August 9, 2007
12:22 PM
jay writes:
"Yet on the Van Halen post you give eleven quotes attributed to well known righty Ted Nugent"
You'll notice I wasn't badmouthing Ted for his politics...but rather responding to a question from a poster as to why I thought The Nugget was nuttier than squirrel shit. I gave appropriate examples to make my case. See...that's how these debates work....maybe you should try it instead of attacking folks...just a thought.
August 9, 2007
12:49 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
Although Julie Aigner-Clark meant well when she made those videos, the science says that you're better off minimizing screen time and reading bedtime stories to your tots.
If our kids get any dumber from all the TV they watch, they could wind up as South Park Republicans.
August 9, 2007
6:51 PM
Enquiring minds writes:
Thanks for clearing it up Jay. I guess I read too much into the quotes. Like gun control, environmentalism, religion, and war. Nope, nothing political about those subjects.
August 10, 2007
11:04 AM
jimi99 writes:
It is the law of diminishing returns: younger generations of parents are less literate and more tech-savvy, so they rear their children that way, and without the all-important bedtime story.
This is a generalization, because since the 1950s parents have used TV as a sitter/pacifier/educator, but reading to a child forms a bond of love, wonder, and imagination that is irreplaceable. One can only hope that younger, busier, electronic parents will try to preserve this ages-old tradition.