I've been seeing evil coming out of my television set, lately...

[capri0mni]

Namely, Infomercials that are pushing a set of videos called "Your Baby Can Read," a regimen where you plunk your baby down in front of the tv starting at three months old every day, and by nine months, the promise is that they'll actually be reading individual words like "bellybutton" and "kick," and understanding what the words mean, and by age two years they'll be reading novels by Dickens.

And the promise is explicitely stated that this will make your child a success in school, and in business and government, when she grows up.

Um. Your baby's eyes (and the muscles that control them) aren't even fully developed until about three years old, and you're expecting (demanding?) that she focus on static, two dimensional, abstract shapes and string them together in a single linear fashion?

What about learning to see the world, before learning simply to read about what others have written about it?

What about engaging all your senses, with the real, three dimensional world, and to connect "mud" with "Squishy" and "cold" before learning to connect a three funny looking lines with the single sound "aahh"?

What about playing patty cake or peekaboo, or singing "Where is Thumbkin," with your baby instead of plunking her down in front of a machine?

What about teaching your baby all about holding a conversation, and listening, and doing? Those are also skills your child will need to get ahead. Might even be more important, in the long run.

I mean, I know parents are anxious about their children's future. And I know that Infomercials are big, these days, because they promise quick fixes to the Big Scaries out there.

But this? Teaching your baby to read, starting at three months, makes as much sense as trying to start potty training at three months. And it probably does even more psychological damage.

sorry, I just had to sputter, there.

Comments

[snowgrouse.livejournal.com]

That sort of shit infuriates me, too. I fucking hate the sort of parents who try to grow their kid up into being something special, so they can feel better about *themselves* when the kid excels. Not everyone is highly skilled, intelligent, a superb athlete, a beauty queen, not everyone's good at maths or languages... just... fuck that shit, fuck it with a cactus.

What's the fucking use of making a kid do that sort of early-reading stuff, and try language immersion therapy and so on, if, for example, the kid's a maths whizz instead and sucks at language? And the kid might be really good at language and communication anyway, but might still have dyslexia. GAAAAH.

Fucking fascism, that is, trying to fashion human beings into some ideal model.

[haddayr.livejournal.com]

I am going to use "fuck it with a cactus" in pretty much every conversation I have for the next three weeks.

I heartily agree.

Also? If you ARE somehow successful? How is your child being bored out of his FUCKING MIND all through grade school going to somehow position him for greatness?

[capriuni.livejournal.com]

Yeah. That's why I call it "evil." The whole thing just smacks of "Brave New World" engineering, to me.

What scares me for these kids is that, even if when the videos don't work, the ads are still pomoting and encouraging the parents that "molding" their child is a good thing.

Just :::Shudder:::

[ETA for future reference: the strikethrough tag is practically invisible on the word "if," and not worth it]

[alryssa.livejournal.com]

It's just another conscience salver to those who want to use their TV as a babysitter, IMO.

[capriuni.livejournal.com]

Absolutely!

But it's also someone's idea of a big money maker, apparently. :-/

[uncacreamy.livejournal.com]

Children have an innate sense for language (if they aren't somehow 'damaged', like mine), and teaching them several languages at once when they are very young is not only a good idea, it's the best time to do it, but I am deeply dubious that a child of that age will learn to read, or even if they do, that they'll understand what the words -mean-.

Certainly playing with kids instead of sitting them in front of the tv for a million hours is better.. interpersonal relationships, and playing, and stuff. Much, much better. But sitting a baby down in front of a tv while you're making food, or maybe reading a book for a little while is not too bad. Children watch Sesame St, after all, which is the same thing, just with muppets and clever sequences.

[capriuni.livejournal.com]

A little television is okay, and is certainly a survival tool in a less than ideal world.

But, in an ideal world, I've read and heard that television of any sort before the age of two years is bad for kids.

(But, like that's ever going to happen!)

[rob-t-firefly.livejournal.com]

I hate to break out the tinfoil hats, but I truly wonder if things like this aren't somewhere along the line traceable back to people in the television or advertising businesses who want to start in on that brand new mindshare ever earlier.