Talk:Baby Einstein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Junkscience.com

Junkscience.com is not a legitimate, peer reviewed science (it denies global warming, for example, and is associated with corporate PR). It is used to defend this product on this wiki, but is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.73.160 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

is there a point here? btw, your assertion that junkscience.com denies warming is incorrect. Ken (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Test-market retailer

Does anybody know if the retailer mentioned in the article is Target? Dan40 02:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Product listing

Deleted the lengthy, inappropriate product listing 68.160.188.160 17:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Royalties

Does anyone know if the mention of royalties to the Estate of Albert Einstein is true? It seems kind of ridiculous -- not impossible, just ridiculous -- and the link leads to an article on Kurt Cobain. —  MusicMaker 03:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions that Albert Einstein is in the top 5 of "Most earning dead celebrities", mostly due to these royalties. But I was as surprised as you are, reading that articles title. Perhaps I can edit and make the connection clearer. I'll try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.172.180.130 (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Someone cited a pediatric group as stating that children below 2 years of age should not be allowed to watch t.v. This was interesting. Should they be allowed to listen to it? Children from a very early age learn by listening, and also I am sure by visual cues.

Aaron Stern, author of THE MAKING OF A GENIUS and its sequel THE JOY OF LEARNING taught his daughter Edith from the time she was a very young infant using travel posters, classical music, and dolls of different ethnicities. He challenged her mind with talks about anything that caught her attention, from the sound of a car passing in the street to explaining basic concepts of physics such as leverage at a construction site they were passing as he pushed her in a stroller.

His wife was very worried because the pediatric "experts" were all telling her that he would rob her of her childhood and turn her daughter into a socially maladjusted individual who could not relate comfortably to society. Years later, she acknowledged that far from having harmed the mind of her daughter, he had helped her to become a very mature, well-adjusted, kind and very, very bright young lady, who at age 15 was given the position of assistant professor of abstract mathematics at Michigan State University. Edith tested at between 196 and 205 I.Q. at the age of 12 or 13, and later became a V.P. at IBM in the Research and Development Department according to her father.

There are basicly two ways to spike the intellectual development of a child at an early age. One is the John Mills/James Siddis method, which uses fear and force-feeding information, and the other is the much saner and healthier method using love, encouragement, and affection, which leads out the innate genius within each child to full expression.

The Montessori Schools, when properly conducted, and the Total Education Submersion Method used by Aaron Stern are examples of the healthier second way.

-Robert Michael Burns E-mail address: <spiritknight_2000@yahoo.com> RobertMBurns 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Stern, Author of THE MAKING OF A GENIUS and THE JOY OF LEARNING proved the Pediatric "experts" wrong.

In 1973 a book came out called THE MAKING OF A GENIUS, by Aaron Stern. It was about the Total Education Submersion Method which is the term he used for the method he used to make everything that caught the interest of his children into an opportunity for learning and developing their minds. At the earliest opportunity, he began using travel posters, classical music, ethnic dolls, counting and spelling blocks and many other things to engage the attention and interest of his daughter, Edith Ann Stern, when she was just a few weeks old, and still in her playpen. Using these as a focus, he would explain many concepts of life in very simple terms, teaching her ethics and compassion for all races, elementary mathematics, simple concepts of physics such as leverage, auto mechanics and a wide range of other mind-expanding experiences of everyday life. When they would go out for a walk, he would push her in her baby carriage and explain what different signs meant, and when they would pass a construction site, he would explain simple concepts of physics like leverage, and how it was being used there. When they passed a picket line, he would use this as an opportunity to explain labor-management relations concepts. EVERYTHING that caught her attention was used as an opportunity to further educate her, and expand her understanding of concepts and how her world worked.

At age 5, she was tested for her intelligence level. She tested at between 196 and 205 I.Q. At age 16 she was given the position of Assistant Professor of Abstract Mathematics at Michigan State University. Later she went to work for IBM as a computer consultant, and eventually became a V.P. in the Research and Development Dept. of IBM, according to her father. She married, and I believe had one child. Her mother, who had been filled with fear by her husband's methods because the pediatric "experts" were all telling her that he would ruin the mind and social life of her daughter, later acknowledged that far from ruining her daughter, he had turned her into a very mature, compassionate, kind, intelligent and wise young woman of whom she was very proud.

Robert Michael Burns <spiritknight_2000@yahoo.com RobertMBurns 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Sierra Clark Is 5 Years Old Aspen Clark Is 10 Years Old

baby einstein generated profits 2005

In the July 3, 2006 issue of Forbes Magazine they list the earnings of the Albert Einstein estate, Baby eistein generated 400 million dollars in 2005!70.50.159.50 19:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Learning Theory

Anyone can claim a DVD is educational without any basis. So, what is the supposed theory behind the Baby Einstein method? Surely they have some guiding educational theory which serves as the principle behind the content direction. So, what is it? I'm curious what the theory is, how deep it is, and how much research may or may not be behind their methodology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.223.7.51 (talk • contribs) 15:51, August 3, 2007

New Study found detrimental effects of baby einstien on the development of vocabulary

From the Aug 7, 2007 LA Times article Baby Einstein: a bright idea? about the study:

Parents hoping to raise baby Einsteins by using infant educational videos are actually creating baby Homer Simpsons, according to a new study released today.

For every hour a day that babies 8 to 16 months old were shown such popular series as "Brainy Baby" or "Baby Einstein," they knew six to eight fewer words than other children, the study found.

Parents aiming to put their babies on the fast track, even if they are still working on walking, each year buy hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of the videos.

Unfortunately it's all money down the tubes, according to Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Christakis and his colleagues surveyed 1,000 parents in Washington and Minnesota and determined their babies' vocabularies using a set of 90 common baby words, including mommy, nose and choo-choo.

The researchers found that 32% of the babies were shown the videos, and 17% of those were shown them for more than an hour a day, according to the study in the Journal of Pediatrics.

To be fair to Baby Einstien, Albert Einstein didn't lear to talk until he was 8. So are they making children retarded or Einsteins? Maybe both? ;) Brentt 09:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good point! Clearly more study is needed.--Daveswagon 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was being facetious, you do know that right? (sorry, if your just playing along, its hard to tell on the interenet sometimes.) Brentt 04:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry; I'm right there with you.--Daveswagon 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Baby Einstein Company responds to U-W press release announcing study results

The Baby Einstein Company has issued publicly the following statement in response to this matter: Baby Einstein is committed to maintaining the highest standards in the development of all of our products. After thoroughly analyzing the University of Washington study, we have serious concerns about the many contradictions between the study's conclusions and the content of its press release that created publicity which incorrectly suggests that this study focused on Baby Einstein products. In fact, the report concludes by stating “The analysis presented here is not a direct test of the developmental impact of viewing baby DVDs/videos. We did not test through experimental manipulation whether viewing baby DVDs/videos has a positive or negative impact on vocabulary acquisition.”—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwspelich (talk • contribs) 05:38 10 August 2007

Correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps parents who buy Baby Einstein products are themselves more stupid on average -- which is reflected in their babies.--Daveswagon 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be more interested in knowing how engaged with their children the parents of the children monitored in these studies are. If all they do is plunk their children in front of the TV all day, of course they're going to have stunted development. My daughter watches Baby Einstein and other videos, but we talk about them and engage in play related to what we see, which is how they're intended to be used in the first place (according to the "about this video" guide included on the original Baby Einstein videotape). They've certainly not shown any sign of harming her, judging from her enormous vocabulary, her ability to count to 15 before she was 15 months old, and her ability recognize all the letters and numbers and recite the alphabet before 18 months.--24.158.203.148 (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all really impressed. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the aforementioned study and much of the subsequent discussion lack any real substance. Of course a DVD or video is not a substitute for a skilled and suitably equipped parent. However, as an aid to a busy parent, who may have to cook or do other chores, on occasion, whilst their baby is awake, it is stimulating and enjoyable entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.131.99 (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of Date information was removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.244.204 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

“International Criticism”

Hi there – I’m going to remove the following paragraph from the ‘‘’Complaint to FTC and International Criticism’’’ sub-section:

‘’A report [1] in the Sydney Morning Herald, a prominent Australian newspaper reported in 2007 that products such as Baby Einstein "are little more than snake oil and can actually slow a toddler's learning". Furthermore, Dr Susan Linn, co-founder of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood coalition in Australia, was said to accuse sellers of the baby development DVDs, Baby Einstein of "false and deceptive marketing". She said that research had demonstrated that "Not only is there no evidence that baby videos do any of the things the baby video industry claims they do, but these media may actually be undermining the development of the very skills they claim to foster,".’’

This entire paragraph seems to be based on a mis-reading of the linked article – Susan Linn is an American and the campaign in question happened solely in the US, so there is no “international criticism” to speak of here. I’ll also amend the subsection header. Blair1201 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)