Posted on 07/26/2004 7:45:29 PM PDT by neverdem
PING
Probably better than DemocRATS.
I don't get it.
<|:)~
That's OK. Ask a baby to explain it to you :)
Who ARE these morons and how much are the taxpayers paying for a study that any mother has known all along? Every baby develops a method of communication and understanding long before it utters a word. As its language develops, its methods of communication change. And example is a crying baby who is hungry and a 4 year old who says "I'm hungry." When my daughter barely had language she would press my lips together and say roughly "Sing sunshine." And I would sing "You are my sunshine, my only sunshine." And most mothers don't have scientific degrees and are still able to figure non-language communication with their infants.
"I don't get it."
The words needed to describe diaper situation are usually picked later than at 5 months age, right? But diaper situation comprehension starts much earlier.
My eight month old grandkids not only smile, laugh and cry, they come to me when they see my outstretched arms. They certainly do not need to hear anything to do any of the above. What I am wondering is how stupid do you have to be to be eligible for a government job studying such lunacy. It’s all bovine flatulence if you ask me, let them study that…oh yea, they already did.
Babies also smile in the womb. Now that should really confuse them
Fercryinoutloud. As a father of seven, I can tell you that babies are sharp as TACKS.
My youngest is now 2 1/2, and if I told you what this kid knows (all his siblings are in their teens or twenties) and can say, you wouldn't believe me.
So-called scientists...........jeez..........
Einstein said that he thought in pictures rather than words. We all do, pictures, actions, percepts.
This is not the first time that scientists have "discovered" a concept that mothers have known for so long they didn't think it was news. I remember when scientists discovered that babies could actually see at birth. Or that babies could tell who their mother was.
It is both irritating and amusing when they name a "discovery" after themselves. For example, Braxton-Hicks contractions. Mothers have been experiencing them for thousands of years and then some arrogant doctor thinks he discovered them.
While what you are saying is absolutely true (raised five myself) it is a little different from what the authors are saying.
While we can all agree that babies are amazingly communicative, and sharp as tacks, none of us could know what kind of non-verbal logical associations are going on in there without experimentation of a very specific kind.
Thinking before language in babies, yes, we all can know that from our experiences with babies, but I don't think we could have known that they could develop non-verbal conceptualization of some rather abstract ideas like "tightness of fit".
Now, do babies raised in English-speaking homes with Boston dialects learn differently than those in English-speaking homes with Texas dialects?
Well, as my daughter used to say when she was a teenager --- DUH!
A surprising new study released Monday by UCLA's Institute For Child Development revealed that human babies, long thought by psychologists to be highly inquisitive and adaptable, are actually extraordinarily stupid.
LOL, thanks for the link.
I really thought you were making a Python-esque joke, so I had to register and find out for myself.
I think ebonics produces a different world view. Of course, so does that idiotic way Canadians say "aboot".
That was thr best laugh I had today!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.