When I woke up this morning, I thought, "You know, Fluxy, what the world really needs is another article on parenting written by a childless young person." I'm not one to deny The World, so let's hope I don't step on too many toes with this.
A few months back, some of you might remember hearing about a study showing that Baby Einstein and similar media oriented toward smartifying Very Small Persons did, well, the opposite, reducing language skills by about 10%. It's surprising, you know, since we all know that watching TV makes adults much more intelligent than any other activity. But apparently it's so potentially stunting of little minds that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against children two and under watching any television at all.
...The Baby Einstein Company is aware of the ongoing discussions regarding children and television viewing, particularly as it pertains to infants under the age of two years old. And, while we respect the American Academy of Pediatrics, we do not believe that their recommendation of no television for children under the age of two reflects the reality of today's parents, families and households - for example, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 68% of all babies under two years old watch screen media on any given day. The Baby Einstein Company believes that when used properly, developmentally-appropriate video content can be a useful tool for parents and little ones to enjoy together.
Really, you guys? You're using the "but, moooooom, everybody's doing it!" defense?
But perhaps we are being too judgmental of the Baby Einstein™ subsidiary of Disney™. What do those nasty academics poo-pooing the trend of video parenting suggest? Well, interacting and talking with your baby. This is, of course, absurd, as we all know that discussion with our elders only makes us stupid and weak. That's why college is for chumps.
I always thought that building blocks were kind of dorky, but the Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute has found a correlation between stacking blocks and early language skills. Apparently brand names and fancy marketing have no effect on childhood intelligence and happiness. All those pushing Bugaboos and other frou-frou items of the Pants-Pissing Elite may now commence crying into their Cheerios.
Of course, I am not (yet) a mom, and it's a hell of a lot easier for me to say that the Very Small shouldn't be parked in front of the TV, that you should be engaging your kids in age-appropriate, thought-provoking conversation and the building of tiny castles out of preciously retro wooden blocks. I try not to be too much of a sanctimonious mater en potentia.
I loved Lego. Did it make me smarter? Hard to say... but should I ever spawn you can bet they'll be playing with something other than a remote control.
I always feel a little better about the world when someone uses the ™ symbol.
One might wonder why so many people want to be on youtube, why so many want to be famous.
If you're taught to worship "screen media" at an early enough age, perhaps your religion would just encourage you to become one with it, rather than know how to, say, form a complete sentence. Or talk to people honestly and insightfully, without having to rely on typing rather than speaking.
my mother, being the hippie she is, always treated me as a human -- a very small one, but a person nonetheless. it was her belief that i was born with everything in me, i just didn't know how to do it yet, so she'd read me adult material and speak to me in an adult voice using proper grammar.
as it turns out, that's a great recipe for a smartass know-it-all. the jury's still out on whether it results in actual intelligence.
I didn't have cable when I was little, so I didn't watch much TV (daytime soaps weren't my thing either), and I think I'm pretty normal on the smart-o-meter. I have common sense, and logic is a good friend of mine. at the same time, I'm not going to a fancy college and I didn't take AP courses in high school.
On the other hand, I have friends who had 500 channels when they were a kid and were parked in front of the TV non-stop. And well... they aren't great conversationalists, to say the least (no offense, satillite lovers).
I'd say that baby einstien stuff just allows parents to plop the baby in front of the TV, without that guilty feeling of leaving your child to fall into an absent minded abyss.......
i have fond memory of blocks, in fact every morning when i go to shave in the mirror i'm reminded of the evil wooden weapons. i was 3 and my sister was 2. she decided to throw one at me and it landed right above my eye, splitting my eyebrow open and giving me a concussion. obviously years later after alot of therapy i can laugh at the incident. she has kids now, but i'm decidedly nervous around them, just in case they want to finish the job that their mother couldn't.
"I'll interact with my child" and "I'll give them blocks" does not exceed the purview of a single person's intentions, nor does "I'd like to be a good parent someday."
I still remember my dad out in the garage using a chop saw and electric sander to make blocks for me, which is even more touching in hindsight -- I now realize how un-handy he is with anything of the sort, but the blocks worked just fine for me and undoubtedly contributed to my present archi-geek-itecture passion. Damn good dude.
Mostly Aussie kids go to pre-school for the year before they enter kindergarten. Me, I went for a couple of days. When I realised that they try to make you have a nap while my favourite daytime soaps were on, I naturally rebelled, and convinced my mother to keep me at home, where I could watch Days of our Lives and The Young and the Restless.
Co-incidentally, due to the fact that I basically didn't say a word (or even emit a nonsense sound that an over-eager parent could somehow interpret as a word) until I was about 2 and a half, my parents assumed I was slow. They even put me into kindergarten a year ahead of schedule; their plan being that this way, when I had to repeat a grade, I would be amongst kids my own age. Good idea, neh?
Now, I'm not one to blow my own horn. For starters, I hear you need to get some ribs removed so you can do that. That being said, I never repeated a year, went on to a selective high school and University, and now I work in computers. I have also been a salesman, and am considered by many to be overly chatty.
The only lasting effects I can detect from overexposure to the worst kinds of television as a little fella is the tendancy to gossip more than most males, and the regularity with which my love-life becomes tangled. I've yet to be killed and replaced by my heretofore unknown twin brother, but I live in hope. Perhaps I'm the evil one - after all, I am sporting the goatee.
Luckily for the world, I have no intention of breeding at this time.
That 68% statistic is frightening... 2 years seems like an awful short amount of time for a kid to have gotten bored with everything, to the point of needing TV all day. Though, 31 years sounds about right...
Fear not, lazy parents, it doesn't seem that much harder to supervise blocks, lincoln logs, etc. than it does to supervise TV watching.
This is an interesting time for parents as we enter a more digital age. Growing up watching television for me was an outlet into worlds that I couldn't experience on a daily basis. Documentaries on HBO, Discovery, The Sundance Channel were my break from innocence. Prison systems. Drugs. Sex. All documented, and being from an extremely conservative house old in a small community there was no discussion of such things in life, no discussions on anything for that matter for better or worse I am who I am today. Not a genius. Not entrenched in mediocrity. I am not yet a parent, and up to the age of eleven or so my world was consumed with things like Lego's and Books and Mario. When I started watching TV it was to see the world that I couldn't experience, and as I said before for better worse. Did Seinfeld at 13 cost me Harvard Universtiy? Probably not. Sorry if this was a little off topic as far as relating to children.
Statistics like this always make me cringe. They also make me proud of my own mama, who knows how to raise a genius or two. At least when she did park me in front of the TV, it was usually* something awesome like 3-2-1 Contact! Oh man, I miss that show.
My mother is a nursery teacher and I when I was a child I was only allowed to watch programmes she regarded as appropriate and "pedagogically valuable", as she used to say. While back then I obviously thought this sucked, I am glad now because I really benefited from the fact that my mum spent a lot of time with me engaging me in games and activities rather than parking me in front of the telly like the majority of other parents did with their children.
Also, it is a fact that the criticial period of language acquisition is supported most by actual language input, meaning interaction and not the child playing a passive role by merely listening or watching. And to hell with Disney anyway, argh.
I grew up watching the "smart" shows...Eureka's Castle, Sesame Street, The Magic School Bus. But I also watched shows that had no educational value whatsoever: Star Trek, F-Troop, I Dream of Genie, you know...garbage TV. Now, Sudoku isn't exactly my forte, but I can carry on an intelligent conversation with people without compulsory swearing (like everyone my age around here).
Hell, I remember getting bored with the kids shows because they were too dumb and wanting to watch NOVA, National Geographic, and basically all the other shows that were on the Discovery Channel before it split up into its 12 channels. I'd watch the History Channel because I wanted to, not because my parents were making me. Most other 3rd graders would come home from school, grab a Snak-Pak of oreos and a coke and plop on the couch and stare at Bugs Bunny for 3 hours until Nick and Night came on. I'd come home, grab the same snack, and plop down and watch "Great Blunders in History", or "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan.
I don't think that what the parents actually do has much effect on the child, I think it's more of what they start to do and how they steer the child into realizing on their own that learning is fun, and WAY better than being a knuckle-dragging redneck.
SnowgodCCR said:
I grew up watching the "smart" shows...Eureka's Castle, Sesame Street, The Magic School Bus. But I also watched shows that had no educational value whatsoever: Star Trek, F-Troop, I Dream of Genie, you know...garbage TV.
Are you my long-lost brother or something? I could swear I'm the only person under thirty who's ever watched F-Troop.
Slamming Baby Einstein™, Crocs™, and parents who believe their convenience outweighs the well being of their children (™?) - why, Fluxy, I think I love you.
I understand that you cannot watch your children constantly... but how about *most* of the time? Or maybe at least *know* what they're doing? Or, you know... just keep on keepin' on, and let us all turn into one big Idiocracy. I mean, if that's what you want.
SnowgodCCR said:
I grew up watching the "smart" shows...Eureka's Castle, Sesame Street, The Magic School Bus. But I also watched shows that had no educational value whatsoever: Star Trek, F-Troop, I Dream of Genie, you know...garbage TV.
Are you my long-lost brother or something? I could swear I'm the only person under thirty who's ever watched F-Troop.
Under thirty? I was talking with our bartender the other day who is 36, and she's never even heard of it! Which is sad sad sad. The world would be a better place if we all watched F-Troop.
I have a degree in Physics and 2 sons at school. One came home with something in his homework called, " wooden MABs " .... we called them blocks or rods 30 years ago - square wooden blocks of different lengths and colours.
The "unknown" acronym was for Multibase Arithmatic Blocks.
The whole world has come the full circle, though the crappy modern jargon persists.
But apparently it's so potentially stunting of little minds that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against children two and under watching any television at all.
I just read something related to this in the second chapter of Fast Food Nation where Schlosser is describing the advertising schemes of both McDonald's and Disney.
Page 46 reads:
"In 1978, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) tried to ban all television ads directed at children seven years or younger...
The FTC's proposed ban was supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, the Consumers Union, and the Child Welfare League, among others. But it was attacked by the National Association of Broadcasters, the Toy Manufactures of America, and the Association of National Advertisers...
The typical American child now spends about twenty-one hours a week watching television - roughly one and a half months of TV every year. The does not include the time children spend in front a screen playing video games, or using the computer. Outside of school, the typical American child spends more time watching television than any other activity except sleeping. During the course of a year, he or she watches more than thirty thousand TV commercials. Even the nation's youngest children are watching a great deal of television. About one-quarter of American children between the ages of two and five have a TV in their room."
So if it wasn't always already obvious, these companies are in business to make money. They are not necessarily interested in what's best for your children's mind or body.
Flux
SUICIDEGIRL
North Carolina, USA
OCT 03, 2007 02:32 PM