Yeah, but if they keep my screaming niece distracted for a quick 10 minutes, I'm not going to think badly of my sister for using them.

We bought one at a garage sale. Watched it for about 5 minutes and we thought, what the hell? These things are crap.

I'm pretty sure the makers of the videos say that they are designed to be watched with the parent. The videos were never meant to be a substitute for parental interaction. More university dollars wasted. Well done.

Anyone who thought these videos were instructional is an idiot to begin with. It's baby-appropriate entertainment. And what's wrong with that? Nothing.

@anatak: Yeah, and bongs are only used for tobacco purposes. ;)

My nephew was raised watching these (with parental supervision and interaction - his father's a SAHD). He's three now, and seeing a speech therapist to catch him up to where he should be, verbally.

Of course, he also has an actual diagnosis of Asperger's, so I'm not sure I'd blame the videos.

This study was fairly unscientific. Two things: Notice how he just "surveyed" parents. This is based on the parents perceived results, not actual results. Second, 1,000 is not a very high number for a sample size. Be careful when reading studies like this, you have to look for bias. And Baby Einstein is crack for babies.

Like everything else in life: moderation, moderation, moderation. A 10 minute distraction is fine, but when parents stick their kid in a Bumbo and aim them at the tv for hours a day, this stuff's gonna happen.

baby Einstein is brilliant marketing, but that is were any real genius ends. The product is total crap in terms of a learning/training tool.

@gibsonic: You hit it. Great marketing and a lot of parents probably sub these in place of good ol' fashioned talking to your kids. There is no magic pill to teach your kids--just parental attention.

the argument is that baby einstein videos or mozart cd's will enhance intelligence is just wrong. no evidence. period.

I bought one of these videos a few years back and I can sum it up in one word: creepy as all hell. All right, maybe that's four words but you get my point. The videos just show various "things" repetitively. My first thought was "wow, if I was on acid this would be awesome." And then I realized that the last thing I needed was to have my baby sit mesmerized in front of a television.

I'm pretty sure that those Baby Einstein videos have mind control messages in them that turn our babies into zombies.

As it turns out, interacting with, and talking to, my kids has been the most rewarding and educational experiences for them. Neither one of my boys cares to watch television. All they want to do is play with dad, run with dad, etc.

@bluegus32:
best summary ever

First of all, no baby should be watching more than 30 minutes of tv a day, if any at all. These Baby Enstein videos are a little over 20 minutes each, so if baby watches one video, once a day, I don't see any harm in that.

I was given one of these videos for my son, due in about 8 weeks. My sister has a 4-month old, so I watched it while babysitting her one day. I watched it with her, and talked to her the whole time. For instance, when they showed pictures of different fruits, I named each one to her.

If I was to watch this with my son on a regular basis, not necessarily every day, but talked to him the whole time and made it interactive, it could be a great learning tool. I would never sit him down in front of the tv to 'shut him up' for a while - there are engaging toys that are much better suited for that purpose, that he can also learn and develop skills from.

It's just one of those things that has to be used in the right way to get good results - otherwise, I can see how it would be a huge waste.

Baby Einstein = Disney...nuff said

We have a dozen of these. I haven't seen one lava lamp. I think I like them more than my child.

Here's the thing, points that have already been made etc.: moderation natch, watch WITH your child, not INSTEAD OF WATCHING your child, and use them as a tool to expand vocabulary.

My son has definitely learned many many concepts from the videos, and he recognizes the music that's used in them even when it's not "einstein-ified" with plinky plink electronic keyboards and synth drums.

He gets excited when he hears Smetana's "The Moldau" (used in at least two of the DVDs) and I think that's worth the price of admission right there.

Hell, they've introduced ME to many different composers and symphonies that I had previously never had any exposure to, and I went out and bought a few CDs because of it.

And it cannot be overstated how convenient it is when you have a two year-old to be able to just have 15 straight uninterrupted minutes to be able to shower, shit, brush your teeth, and get ready to head out the door. That's the only time we let him watch without us, when we just have to get ready to go quickly.

Wait....all these videos contain is mind-numbing imagery? No actual attempt to ...you know...educate?

Anyhow, I seem to recall reading that children raised fully bilingually, learning two language simultaneously, learn both languages more slowly, but eventually become more proficient in both than children raised with one language.

This is why I doubt these conclusions actually mean anything.

Doesn't mean the videos aren't utter bullshit...just that I don't think you can be sure until the kids are in their teens or twenties.

There's a good reason why the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends 0 hours of ANY television before a kid is 2, from their web site:

"Until more research is done about the effects of TV on very young children, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend television for children age 2 or younger. For older children, the Academy recommends no more than 1 to 2 hours per day of educational, nonviolent programs"

Ironically I think since both my wife and I work and our son is in day care we are far LESS inclined to show him this stuff since the time we share together is limited enough without watching trippy crap from Disney.

Ha! If I need to distract my daughter for thirty minutes, I put her in front of Veggie Tales, where they use actual sentences with recognizable grammar and all kinds of yummy vocabulary. My sister-in-law has been entertaining her boy with Baby Einstein for over two years now, and not only is he behind in vocabulary, he pitches the biggest fit you've ever seen if he doesn't get his daily dose of the show.

@ BLOGGYMCBLOGBLOG: I get your point about bias in studies. It's always there; however, never underestimate the ability of a parent to successfully and adequately perceive reality. The reason surveys are used as part of research is because it's been proven that time and again, parents know their kids best in a majority of cases. And 1,000 is completely adequate if it was properly randomized.

Here's an article from January of 2006 saying basically the same thing. Interesting that the studies on these products have been going on for some time, but the sales have still been good. I guess if you have a choice between Baby Einstein and Teletubbies, the former looks better.

From what the article's saying, it almost sounds like it'd be better to put on some old episodes of Masterpiece Theater or some BBC costume-drama stuff. Music, colors, and dialogue, but with a slower pace and fewer jump-cuts. The Joy of Painting might also be a good option, as Bob Ross's voice is soothing enough to put an infant to sleep.

They may not help your child with his or her vocabulary, but when it comes time to decorate their college dorm they'll have no problem picking out a lava lamp.

@dancemonkey:

We have a dozen of these . . . I think I like them more than my child.

I'm sure Baby Einstein videos can be part of a stimulating childhood, just like Fruit Loops can be part of a nutritious breakfast.

The power of marketing combined with a catchy title once again trumps common sense and scientific observation. On a more sane note - it isn't just hearing the words that teaches kids to speak, it's watching the parents form the words and then mimicking their muscle movements.

Yikes, I bought a girlfriend a bunch of these for her baby shower.

Why don't parents read to their children anymore? None of my friends read to their kids, but I credit my verbal skills to the fact that my parents read to me every night, thereby instilling in me a love for books. I guess that must have been before our neighborhood got cable.

<--- I'm going to sue them for using my face as a mascot.

For all the folks posting that they watch the videos with their kids and explain what's going on and name the stuff that is shown, I'm just not buying that. If you spend all that time and energy explaining the video to a 4 mo. old (huh?) why not just turn the tube off and interact with the child w/o the video.

I can understand that parents sometimes need a 15 minute video babysitter but wonder what parents did before videos? I think I'm going to call up my mom and ask her how she managed since I was raised in a house with no tv (born and raised in the 70s/80s). And yes I totally hated my mom & dad for denying me the enjoyment of tv, but now recognize that all the hours spent outside or reading or jammin' out to some far out 70s music was probably a better use of my time.

@SadSam: I think it's called "dump the kid in the playpen, turn up music to drown out screaming."

href="#c2080140">scarequotes: totaly.

hey! I screwed up the reply thing!

@SadSam: I'm totally with you.

If you say your child is learning about classical music from these videos while you name the bird, tree, color, or whatever crap shows up in it, why not just turn off the tube, but some Mozart or a "100 best classical songs of all time" CDs on the stereo, crack open a book, and name the bird, tree, color or whatever that's in the story as you **read** it to him or her.

@SUBURBANSOCIALITE
THANK YOU!
That was exactly what I ws thinking. Why is it that everything now has to be made technically advanced to make you smarter? Isn't it a proven fact that simply reading and being read to actually does make one smarter?
Why is reading such a negative thing in American culture?
My mother read to me as a child [real books too, not just kiddie books..Lord of the Rings being one I remember] and I wasn't plopped in front of a TV as a babysitter. Coincidentally, I did quite well in school AND as a bonus didn't get fat either...

There are lots of studies which show that babies learn best from human interaction, not just a TV (or pictures). But, the average parent sees advertising, not scientific studies, so it gets used as a primary method (or babysitter) instead of an accessory to standard education and interaction.

Kids can be mesmerized by ANYTHING -- blinking lights, a spinning mobile, a slow ceiling fan -- so I stick with low-tech lava lamps like that.

@SadSam: Why not use both? My baby shower guests have been asked to bring a copy of their favorite childhood book so we can start our son's library - of course I plan to read to him, and often. As a matter of fact, he's already getting to know his father's voice in-utero, as he reads to him every night. He's also already learning to recognize classical music because I play it for him all the time.

I don't see what's so bad about watching a 20-minute video with him every now and then. He's going to be interested in that box with the moving pictures, I might as well let him watch something that's made for babies.

I think part of the problem is that parents aren't realizing these videos are made for BABIES, not two-year-olds. By that age they should be watching something more age-appropriate, like Veggie-Tales or Sesame Street. But for an infant, something with music, slow movements and bright colors is perfect. In small doses.

The thing is, regardless of whether or not you want to use TV as a 15-minute babysitter -- can't fault anyone for wanting 15 minutes of quiet -- why bother spending money on Baby Einstein stuff when you already get regular TV for free?

Your six-month-old doesn't care if she's watching MTV, a Tide commercial, Dora the Explorer, The Wire, or video catnip -- they'll all capture her attention, and you don't need to start up a DVD player. And they're no better or worse than Baby Einstein and its ilk.

This research fails to point out Baby Einstein's fantastic educational method.... it trains your baby to passively watch a TV screen.

These creep me out, especially since they're named for geniuses who (surprise!) lived before the age of mass electronic media. But then, brilliant he may be, "Baby Stephen Hawking" might eek out the parents a bit.

I find bull mastiffs are a MUCH more interactive experience for toddlers.

Curiously, I get few repeat requests to child-sit.

My girlfriend's daughter had a son almost two years ago and her daughter stated that she was going to get him Baby Einstein. I lobbied hard against it stating that due to the effects that television has on brain activity, that it would actually slow the development of his cognition.

When he is in my care, I read to him and play interactive games. One of them was that I would put either his bottle or his favorite snack treat in a large jar with a loosely fit screw on cap. After demonstrating to him how to open it. After a few tries he learned how to open it and extract his goods.

I constantly read to him, talk to him and when I carry him down stairs I count each step as I go. He is now just shy of two years old, he can count to 20 and he speaks very well.

While watching television, the brain appears to slow to a halt, registering low alpha wave readings on the EEG. This is caused by the radiant light produced by cathode ray technology within the television set. Even if you're reading text on a television screen the brain registers low levels of activity. Once again, regardless of the content being presented, television essentially turns off your nervous system.

I've said this multiple times, but it never sinks in. All you parents who put your babies in front of the TV to get 15 minutes of peace, you are bad parents! Studies have shown that any TV time harms toddlers. (Don't even get me started on the people who put TVs in the rooms of toddlers.)

Since 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended no television for children under 3, including educational shows. For older children, the academy suggests no more than one to two hours a day of "quality" television.

Studies show for each hour of television watched per day before age 3, a child's reading comprehension and short-term memory scores fell at age 6 and 7.

[seattlepi.nwsource.com]

One really interesting study had toddlers be taught something by an adult standing in front of them and speaking to them in person. Then in another round, they had the adult appear in front of toddlers on a television screen standing and speaking in the exact same way.

Those who had the live person learned and retained about three times better. Somehow, having someone there in person makes babies engage better...

Most kids learn the basics of human communication naturally over a period of time as a result of being around people who already speak the language around them. I can't believe people buy stuff like this...

@Alicetheowl: Actually, I'm willing to bet you can blame the videos for the Asperger's. They'll have contributed to any ADD/ADHD tendencies the kid has, too.

@XopherMV: You're statement about someone putting a child in front of a tv for 15 mins makes them a bad parent is overgeneralization. Putting a child in the street to play for 15 mins makes them a bad parent. The state is not going to revoke your parental rights for putting a child in front of a tv for 15 lousy mins here or there. Chill out.

Btw, in case you're wondering, my son did not watch tv when he was a baby. he was too busy crawling around getting into stuff.

@XopherMV: I *loved* Sesame Street when I was very little and I taught myself to read by age 2, so your bolded statements are nothing but generalized conjecture. I see nothing wrong with a little bit of educational TV (I still know 1-10 in Spanish and a little bit of sign language thanks to public broadcasting) as long as the parents are engaged otherwise. My parents read a lot to me, I played indoors and outside, and did all the typical kid things, as well as watching TV occasionally.

I do however, agree with most posters that just showing images on the screen is not going to do your child any good. Especially in the babbling years, hearing a lot of language is important. As is, you know, actually interacting with people. I am just saying, don't knock television outright.

I'd be curious to know how many people in this discussion are actually parents.

Thanks Floofy. XopherMV, you're a tool. Overgeneralization is overly polite. Even if you are a parent, scientific studies do not raise children. Parents raise children.

If putting my son in front of a TV for 15 minutes so my wife can take a shower once every couple days makes her a bad parent, then I'd rather have her be a sane and sanitary bad parent than your brand of good parent. We don't have all have the family support or resources to have a babysitter or a nanny give us the occasional break. An insane parent can't be a good parent, regardless of how much TV is on in the house.

Hell, I watched HOURS of television when I was a child. Guess what? I have good parents. I'm able to moderate my television, gaming, alcohol intake, etc. Parenting isn't about caring what the fuck the AAP says, it's about making the right choice for the child and the parent in the real world on a daily basis.

It bears repeating: XopherMV, you're a tool.

Sorry, but I don't buy this for a minute. Both of my kids were huge Baby Einstein addicts, and both of them have exceptional vocabularies; my six-year-old is reading at a fourth-grade level. In addition, he can identify the full orchestral versions of the music he's heard in this series, and even knows the different styles. This study doesn't prove anything except that maybe good parenting is a combination of things and not about just throwing your kid in front of the tube in the hope that something might just sink in. Sure, something's bound to go wrong if you only stick with one thing, but I think most parents are pretty good at balancing their kids' sources of input. Personally, I love the series.

@mediaJolt: But you are providing your child with access to full orchestral versions on the music. Pat yourself on the back for that; many kids get little music education.

@XopherMV: "All you parents who put your babies in front of the TV to get 15 minutes of peace, you are bad parents!"

Uh, no, that's kind of the definition of good parenting, recognizing when you've reached your psychological limit and being able to safely withdraw from your children to regain your adult equilibrium. Unless you think "good parenting" consists of either repressing all adult feelings until the children are grown, or inappropriately acting out at toddlers as if you were their peer rather than parent.

Some people are lucky enough to have family or close friends nearby to provide these respites. Others are not. If Spawn-of-Satan Barney the Purple Dino gives these parents their 15 minutes to find their equilibrium without putting their child in danger, MORE POWER TO THEM. And to Barney, evil though he may be.

Perhaps you're not familiar with what parents with no help and no breaks can do to their children in their desperation. Go to juvenile court and you can find out.

------

@All -- when I nannied, I used to read the preverbal kids whatever I was reading, which was usually school books. "... and the intercontinental ballistic missiles ..." It's good for kids to hear the normal rhythms of human speech as well as the sing-song rhythms we're innately driven to use with little kids (which helps them acquire language faster). What they want is to hear your voice and to hear you speaking/reading; they don't care what you read until they're somewhat older. (And of course I quit reading them law and political science before they were able to process even the tiniest bit that might be even a little bit frightening. The minute they can understand the word "missile" is the minute we need to be reading a counting book with jungle animals.)

But even with my toddler-neighbor who is just beginning to read little words, when he's tired at night and I'm watching him because there's a crisis of some sort, I just read him whatever novel I'm reading (minus any inappropriate words/scenes). Even at that age, when they're tired, they just want to hear your voice, and the more speech they hear, the better for their language-brain-bits.