And why is it hardly ever mentioned that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no television for babies and toddlers under the age of 2?

Maybe we need to start slapping one of those Surgeon General warnings on DVDs and TV programs that clearly target that very age group. (Then again, the endorsement of the poster child for poor verbal skills should be a clue....)

This infant learning stuff is all a hucksterism-media phenomenon, like the "Mozart Effect" (TM) that gave birth to the genre. Read Healy's _Endangered Minds_ for much more on the subject.

This whole Classical-Music-Uber-Alles thing just gets me. The idea that there is something intrinsic to European classical forms that make kids smarter is mlarky!

What all of this love for opera and ballet really does is re-enforce the dominance of European-American culture over all other forms. It is true that the better acculturated to the dominant culture you are the better you will do in life, but lets just call it white-middle-class-supremacy, and not mistake it for intelligence.

... if older kids show no difference in vocab, then this may merely be delaying language use, not reducing it.

And if that's the case, the dvd-exposed kids may be spending more time learning how to think non-verbally, which can be immensely helpful for creative thinking, understanding and solving problems, etc.

Watching no TV might be best for the under 2 set, but if they're going to watch, some quality control by the producers of these DVDs wouldn't hurt....I once watched, horror-struck, as one of these "educational" DVDs showed bananas sprouting from the top of what was obviously a coconut palm tree.

Ceci below is absolutely right. Just because babies don't come with an owners' manual doesn't excuse us from understanding some of the basics about brain development, especially if we're purporting to give our kids a leg up on genius status.

Infants' and toddlers' brains have as their prime directive development of the neural net upon which a lifetime of thinking and action will depend. A crucial process during this time is the production of myelin, the protective, strengthening coating along the neural pathways that transmit the information we all need to survive and thrive in the world.

"Screen time" in front of a TV or computer has been shown to retard the production of myelin in the brains of infants and toddlers. Sitting your kid in front of a TV or computer in the hopes some Baby Einstein program is going to pave his or her way into MENSA will have precisely the opposite effect.

Or, as a friend of mine likes to say, ipso, ergo, hosen

You want to make your kids smart and confident as an adult? Hold them, love them, play with them, make them feel secure. Don't pawn them off on nannies or stick them in front of TVs.

I am a mother of an autistic child. I bought these dvds for her, but I never just left her to watch the dvds as a babysitter. I bought them to help her and they have! I sit with her while she watches the dvd and I interact with her. I incorporate what she sees on the screen in her daily life. For instance when she was trying to learn what an apple was. I would point to the apple on the screen and an actual apple in my hand. Now she can identify an apple on site and even when it isn't an actual apple, but just a picture of one. You might not know but Autistic children are veru literal so getting her to identify a picture and not just the real thing is a huge thing. I am happy to say so far I am very pleased with these dvds.

I do have to take one issue here with the comment of "pawning kids off on nannies" as being anything like dropping them in front of videos.

First off, most nannies I have known provide plenty of high-quality interaction with children, often better than their parents do because the nanny has loads more experience with babies than your garden variety first-time parent.

If what you are insinuating is that a parent who would hire a nanny is somehow attempting to shirk parental responsibilities, then you are truly ignorant. Many parents who hire nannies do so because they have to work to support their family, and do not necessarily have a choice about it. Choosing to have a nanny even when it isn't truly necessary is in no way neglecting a child, nor is it failing to participate in your child's development. Why do you presume that having another person in a child's life, providing love and care and devotion is somehow a bad thing? Why assume that love is a zero-sum game, as if one could somehow run out of it or run out of room to receive it?

A child only learns to love in such a limited way if a parent is foolish enough to teach the child such lies. A child can love a nanny and still love the parent as much, if not more. A child cannot get enough love, whether from a parent or a caregiver -- the more people who can love your child, the better off that child is.

I am the first person to advocate that parents should make caring for their child their strongest priority. But I am not so judgemental as to believe that including a professional caregiver in that equation is automatically an act of neglect. Quite the contrary, adding a nanny to the equation, when done responsibly, is including an experienced professional who will care for and love your child, creating a solid environment for your child to grow up in.