Babies can add and subtract?

• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-03-14 08:06
  [video=youtube;ZGu8dxyG0wU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGu8dxyG0wU&feature=plcp&context=C4b06b73VDvjVQa1PpcFMeaiCTDOOn9GWrAW_ohaz0GN6k1nb831o=[/video]
  this is just a theory so far, but the evidence speaks for its self.
  
  this is from an extremely interesting documentary called
  "The Science Of Babies"
• Lolicon wrote on 2012-03-14 08:27
  I still have troubles adding and subtracting.
  Which is why I own a calculator.
• Kayate wrote on 2012-03-14 08:28
  I think ts possible.
• chaolin wrote on 2012-03-14 08:55
  Babies experience sensory overload and began to perceive what is true and what is not at a young age in order to to make sense of the world. Indirectly, I GUESS this suggests arithmetic is possible, but in my eyes it's much better proof of a fledgling sense of rational.
• Episkey wrote on 2012-03-14 08:58
  I just watched the video, that one baby's reaction to 1+1=1 ...
  
  *Slams the desk repeatedly*
  
  Oh. Anyways, that was interesting!
• Rin wrote on 2012-03-14 10:02
  Probably some base for explaining that toddlers can understand the rationality of fairness?
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-03-14 22:17

  Quote from Rin;807487:

  Probably some base for explaining that toddlers can understand the rationality of fairness?

  
  
  pretty much
  
  @Episkey
  she was like
  "THAT CAN'T BE! IMPOSSIBRRUUUU!"
• truefire wrote on 2012-03-14 22:21
  Doesn't surprise me. Infants begin understanding concepts long before they do words. And they begin understanding words long before they learn to say them. So showing signs of the most rudimentary understanding of basic arithmetic really doesn't seem so farfetched to me.
• Kueh wrote on 2012-03-14 22:25
  If I recall correctly, this is called object permanency, for anyone who wants to do more research.
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-03-14 22:32

  Quote from Kueh;807841:

  If I recall correctly, this is called object permanency, for anyone who wants to do more research.

  
  
  Ohh, thank you.
• Kueh wrote on 2012-03-14 22:42

  Quote from chaolin;807343:

  Babies experience sensory overload and began to perceive what is true and what is not at a young age in order to to make sense of the world. Indirectly, I GUESS this suggests arithmetic is possible, but in my eyes it's much better proof of a fledgling sense of rational.

  
  
  The reasoning goes like this:
  
  By comparing the amount of time the baby spends looking at normal events to abnormal events, you get a ratio. You would expect the ratio to be 1, if they look at both equally (that is, for no reason). Any ratios significantly larger than 1, the subject has to understand something about what they're being shown, otherwise they wouldn't look for so long.
  
  Now, why would the subject look for longer? (That is to ask, what is it that's wrong with the event that makes it abnormal?) Why, it's incorrect addition and subtraction, of course.
  
  But there's a key word there, "incorrect". Naturally, there is one and only one way for a subject to be able to identify an incorrect addition event (something we have already established they can do) and that is for them to thoroughly understand a normal event to the point that they should be able to predict the outcome. Only when the outcome is different from their expectation do they respond, giving a ratio higher than one.
  
  So, even though it's not a very exciting experiment, it's far more than indirect.
• Money4Ninero wrote on 2012-03-14 22:54

  Quote from Hannah's Lover;807828:

  
  @Episkey
  she was like
  "THAT CAN'T BE! IMPOSSIBRRUUUU!"

  
  lol. She gave it this look like she wanted to say. "Your joking right? You just told me it was two!"
• whocares8128 wrote on 2012-03-15 01:28

  Quote from Money4Ninero;807919:

  lol. She gave it this look like she wanted to say. "Your joking right? You just told me it was two!"

  
  
  I thought it was more like, "Where the **** did that other mouse go?!!!"
• chaolin wrote on 2012-03-15 08:32

  Quote from Kueh;807890:

  The reasoning goes like this:
  
  By comparing the amount of time the baby spends looking at normal events to abnormal events, you get a ratio. You would expect the ratio to be 1, if they look at both equally (that is, for no reason). Any ratios significantly larger than 1, the subject has to understand something about what they're being shown, otherwise they wouldn't look for so long.
  
  Now, why would the subject look for longer? (That is to ask, what is it that's wrong with the event that makes it abnormal?) Why, it's incorrect addition and subtraction, of course.
  
  But there's a key word there, "incorrect". Naturally, there is one and only one way for a subject to be able to identify an incorrect addition event (something we have already established they can do) and that is for them to thoroughly understand a normal event to the point that they should be able to predict the outcome. Only when the outcome is different from their expectation do they respond, giving a ratio higher than one.
  
  So, even though it's not a very exciting experiment, it's far more than indirect.

  
  
  It still remains indirect as you can't prove arithmetic is going on inside that baby's head and staring/interest isn't entirely convincing either. I'd have to read the actual paper to make a final decision though.
• Kueh wrote on 2012-03-15 08:41

  Quote from chaolin;808751:

  It still remains indirect as you can't prove arithmetic is going on inside that baby's head and staring/interest isn't entirely convincing either. I'd have to read the actual paper to make a final decision though.

  
  
  Well you can't prove anything using the current scientific limitations, so you'll just have to go with the fact that everything that we know about the world is an indirect assumption. (No, I'm serious. Almost every working theory in chemistry and physics are just assumptions that ended up working.)
  
  And, in what way is it not convincing? Or rather, how else can you explain it, without admitting that they have at least some arithmetic capability?