Even though any half-educated baboon knows that there's a study somewhere that proves just about every crackpot theory in existence, most of us sit up and take notice when a study "proves" something we happen to believe.

Take the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation study on children and electronic media (http://www.kff.org/content/2003/20031028/) published earlier this week. It reports that, on average, kids aged 0 to 6 spend almost as much time watching TV or using other screen media (in particular, the computer or Internet) as they do playing outside (One hour, 58 minutes for screen media versus two hours and a minute of playing outside). Much more telling, 34 percent of children aged four to six in what the study calls "heavy television households," those who reported that the television is on "always" or "most of the time" can read, while 56 percent of children in "non-heavy" TV homes are readers. I read a news story on this study where one of the Kaiser board members called this relationship "non-causal." That may be technically true (watching television does not, in and of itself, discourage kids from reading), but I think the behavior of the parents behind that statistic is definitely causal.

My son Max doesn't watch much TV. We did catch an hour or so a day of the Tour de France last July (Max learned some French in the process, though I think he's forgotten it by now), and every two or three weeks I'll watch an international soccer match in the afternoon. But Max doesn't watch the action. In fact, the only thing on TV he likes at all are the Smirnoff Ice ads which come on at half time. He likes the music--those ads have some seriously pumping bass. While the ad is on, Max stares at the screen and dances. Then when the music stops he turns away and does something else. Often, he picks up a book and asks me to read. Which I do.

After months of trying, my wife Barbara got Max into a parent's morning out program at the church down the street. On Max's first day, he walked into the room and picked up a ball. He announced this to everyone: "Ball." One of the caregivers, impressed that he could say "ball," asked Max who was on the ball, which was plastered with pictures of Elmo. Max furrowed his brow, confused. He shrugged his shoulders and said "ball" again. I explained that Max had a better chance of identifying Manchester United striker Ruud van Nistlerooy than Elmo, seeing as Max had never watched "Sesame Street." They were confused, but kinda laughed off my comment. When I returned, they marveled at his vocabulary. "He just talks and talks and talks," one of them told me. "And he knows what everything is."

Max knows words. He's only 20 months old, but his vocabulary is somewhere between 500 and 1,000 words. He can't really talk in sentences yet, but he generally announces to the world whatever it is he's doing ("go downstairs," "swinging," "go ball"), what he sees ("squirrel walking," "sky...boo," "leaves falling") or how he feels ("fun," "happy"). Like any proud father, I'd like to think he's a genius, but he's not. Like any kid, he's naturally curious. He asks what things are. I tell him . Barbara tells him. He listens to us talk. He listens to other people talk. And he puts it all together.

When other parents learn Max's age (he's the size of a two-and-a-half-year-old), they often ask how we taught him all the words he knows. And we answer honestly: We didn't. Oh, we show him things from time to time, but mostly he points at pictures in a book (many things he first sees as illustrations he's able to pick out in real life as well) or simply at whatever object he's curious about and Barbara or I explain what he's seeing. When he speaks (he also has surprisingly good enunciation for a kid his age), we indirectly correct his pronunciation. He still says "boo" for "blue," and "nes" for "yes." If he tells me "sky...boo," I tell him, "Yes, the sky is blue." Reinforcement and a model for correct speech. And we let him go from there.

As I see it, that's the problem with thinking that TV (all those Baby Dahmer videos, etc.) or some other toy will teach your kid anything useful. Sure, Max could be pounding away on some electronic doo-dad or another that would teach him letters. But all he'd really be learning is how to punch a button. Learning letters is useful, but it's much more important that children learn how to interpret information on their own. When TV or a toy does that critical thinking for them, kids aren't learning how to think for themselves--perhaps the most important lesson of early childhood. Parents need to augment whatever "educational" TV or toy time with plain play time. Let their children explore and ask questions and be the curious little folks they are. It's exhausting work, to be sure, but necessary nonetheless. If parents give their kids all the "answers" by substituting videos or toys for creative learning, they're killing their children's natural love of learning.

Is TV ruining kids? No. The researcher is right: The problem isn't TV or Baby Einstein or any of that other nonsense. The problem is lazy parents. I'm not trying to be holier than thou here. I understand that not all families are able to have a parent at home, and sometimes it's absolutely necessary to take a break and let the kid watch a little TV or something. But I do believe that it's a lot more educational to watch Yellow Submarine a hundred times than some insipid counting video. Think about it. With Yellow Submarine, kids learn songs (always fun), a little simple philosophy (the "Nowhere Man," for starters), personal relationships (duh) and, oh by the way, how to count to 64. With an "educational" counting video, all you get are crappy songs, terrible animation and numbers. Listen, your child may not understand everything she sees in Yellow Submarine, but she'll definitely think about it.

And that, after all, is the most educational thing she can do.

Jon Worley never liked "Sesame Street," though he thinks The Muppet Movie is pretty good.