Slashdot Mirror


Baby Meets Big Brother For Science

dylanduck writes "A baby is to be monitored by a network of microphones and video cameras for 14 hours a day, 365 days a year, in an effort to unravel the seemingly miraculous process by which children acquire language. I guess that's what happens when your pop works at MIT's Media Lab. Thankfully his parents can switch off the surveillance for 'private' moments and delete short scenes. All the footage is being classified by algorithms."

142 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. The mom... by crazyjeremy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Meanwhile, the baby's mother (a hot Brazillian model) is not told about the cameras. The baby's father (the rich MIT geek) is clueless why his buddies picked HIS house to do the experiment.

    1. Re:The mom... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Also, they were not told that the switching off for private moments only affects the video tape, not the cams themselves ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:The mom... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      That was a GE appliance commercial, right?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:The mom... by Marthinus · · Score: 1

      that sounds closer to the real reason behind it all. http://www.marthinusswart.com/

    4. Re:The mom... by linguae · · Score: 2, Funny
      Meanwhile, the baby's mother (a hot Brazillian model) is not told about the cameras. The baby's father (the rich MIT geek) is clueless why his buddies picked HIS house to do the experiment.

      There is one problem with that joke. Since when did hot models marry (or even date) us geeks, rich or not? Disprove my conjecture, please.

    5. Re:The mom... by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was going to say.. this is an expensive way to get a sex tape of the wife made.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    6. Re:The mom... by archgoon · · Score: 1

      In soviet Brazil, hot models date YOU!!

  2. Wait this sounds familiar by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if the baby's name is Truman?

    1. Re:Wait this sounds familiar by AltGrendel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Next time, if it's a girl they could name it Jenni.

      --
      The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

      - Douglas Adams

    2. Re:Wait this sounds familiar by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      Beaten to the punch... I so wanted to use that...

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    3. Re:Wait this sounds familiar by nizo · · Score: 1

      I just feel sorry for the guy who posted a similiar Truman response one microsecond after I did and got slam dunked as redundent.

  3. Videos by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I couldn't get the MOV files to work, something about a codec I was missing. The AVIs worked fine though.

    If you can't see them, there are 9 fish eye cameras mounted at certain points of the house and a day passes in 30 seconds (a la National Geographic plant blooming or Requiem for a Dream old lady on crack).

    Each camera seems to have a round piece of paper ready to flip up and down to cover it (possibly via light switch in the room/area) should the family choose it to be necessary.

    I think this is a wonderful and innovative idea, my only concern resides in the child's rights.
    Roy is aware that the project raises ethical issues. But ultimately he thinks he may be providing his son with an incredible gift. "He might be the first person to have a memory that goes back to birth," he says.
    I'm going to say I don't agree with even releasing these short clips to the public. I believe that this footage should be collected, protected & anonymity of the child enforced until the child is 18--at which point they will be capable of releasing the footage under whatever license (GPL even, lol) they deem appropriate. I understand that the parents have full custody, I only hope this child is in no way taken advantage of like so many prodigious children are by their parents.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Videos by jevvim · · Score: 1
      I believe that this footage should be collected, protected & anonymity of the child enforced until the child is 18

      Care to enforce that rule with America's Funniest Home Videos as well?

    2. Re:Videos by 955301 · · Score: 1


      What makes you think an 18 year old will make a decision about the video they won't regret when they are older? Given that, what's the difference between parents making that decision for data in their own house?

      Besides, 18 years of age is an arbitrary amount of elapsed life. Why not 16? Or 30? Can the parents skirt the issue by having signs posted around the house saying "video and audio of this room is recorded between xam and ypm."? You don't have copyrights to video of yourself in public when this type of notice is up.

      Personally, I'd rather this data be published since it's collected for understanding humans in general. Also, I think it would have been nice to have seen the parts of my childhood I cannot recall.

      They should consider selling this to the public once the data requirements are met by a cheap PC.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    3. Re:Videos by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      18 is the point of legal majority, it's as reasonable as any given date. The real issue is that as a child in America (or probably just about anywhere) you have basically no rights until majority.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Videos by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      What makes you think an 18 year old will make a decision about the video they won't regret when they are older?

      Because as the owner of his own image, the baby can decide when he's older that he made a mistake at 18 and opt to release it to the public.

      If the father makes it public now, and the child decides at either 18 or 80 that he does not want this stuff out there -- well, it's too late now, isn't it?

      Think of it this way: will this guy ever have a shot at a career in politics?

    5. Re:Videos by $1uck · · Score: 1

      I just figured he was trying to be redundant.

    6. Re:Videos by 955301 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And if the 18 year old releases it, but upon turning 26 finds out an insurance company turned him down because something in the video indicated a health issue predisposing him to cancer?

      the 18 year old can still have regrets later...

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    7. Re:Videos by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      I see... I was reading your comment the other way around. That's true, but then at least it would be his mistake, instead of someone else's that he has to live with.

    8. Re:Videos by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      I'll admit that the public nature of the child's life is a little troubling for me as well, but I'm hard put to say why. Children don't even really have awareness of themselves as discrete entities in the world until they're several months old, so it's difficult to imagine what kind of privacy concerns the kid could have. I mean, other than, "Oh my god, my future (boy|girl)friend saw pictures of me pooping when I was six months old?!?"

      As for memory going back to birth: I find that pretty unlikely. There's some evidence popping up that development of language and sense of self is a necessary catalyst to the formation of long term memories (don't have a reference handy, unfortunately). Just because I see pictures of me as an infant doesn't mean that I'll be able to say, "Oh yeah. I rembember that day. I had wicked diaper rash that day."

    9. Re:Videos by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      so it's difficult to imagine what kind of privacy concerns the kid could have.

      It's the privacy concerns of the adult the child will become that are worthy of consideration. If someone now were to find and publish a picture of my one-year-old self with my diaper down around my ankles, I beleive that would be an invasion of my privacy; if the publication occured before I was 18, it would be no less invasive.

      Yes, parents can make decisions for their kids, but for the child's protection that power is subject to constraint by law. This may (note "may", not "should") be a case where such constraint is warranted.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    10. Re:Videos by maxume · · Score: 1

      If you don't agree with releasing the clips to the public then you probably shouldn't be downloading and watching them...

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Videos by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      It could be argued that many peoples' lives are already the result of someone else's mistake.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    12. Re:Videos by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Can the parents skirt the issue by having signs posted around the house saying "video and audio of this room is recorded between xam and ypm.

      Clearly, the courts will say this experiment is legal based solely on the presence of such signs in the baby's room.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  4. Baby's first words by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Funny

    Suprisingly, the Baby's first words mimick the sounds made by the recording equipment:

    "beep"
    "zzzzZZZZZZzzz"
    "click click click click"

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  5. Will parents delete first swear word? by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    Just curious. Most people would.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    1. Re:Will parents delete first swear word? by Snarfangel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just wait until some pranksters teach the kid to say "Caltech."

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
    2. Re:Will parents delete first swear word? by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      Ofcourse they wont! They are scientists, not members of some absolutist moral cult! Especially when it comes to language, such things are crucial to document if one is to get a complete picture of the development of the child.

  6. This question is like by iogan · · Score: 1

    the Linux / Windows debate of linguistics. Do we have a language gene, or is the exposure we get to language somehow able to give us all the clues we need to have more or less perfect grammar by the age of about three?

    I really wish we could solve this once and for all and just move on, hopefully this can help.
    (cue the jokes about how some slashdotters have the grammar skills of a three-year-old etc).

    1. Re:This question is like by shawb · · Score: 1

      Humans will naturally develop communication, even without being taught how. For instance there are examples of groups of deaf children developing sign language on their own, etc. I do remember hearing that there is a time frame in which learning how to communicate has to be accomplished in. There were case studies of "feral" children who basically raised themselves from a very young age with no social human contact. After a certain age, they can be trained to become more civilized, but nobody has as of yet found progress in teaching any sort of language communication skills. The word "trained" in the above sentence was intentional, as they can not be "taught" things like most children would be, the process is much more similar to classical pavlovian reinforcement.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    2. Re:This question is like by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      ...to have more or less perfect grammar by the age of about three

      If three year olds have more or less perfect grammar by age 3, what the hell happens to adults? Seriously, is it something in the drinking water?

    3. Re:This question is like by swimmar132 · · Score: 1

      Adults do have perfect grammar. Maybe not according to language eggheads, but language is defined by common usage (and there are many dialects of English), not by eggheads.

    4. Re:This question is like by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      Bad joke gone worse. No offense intended =)

    5. Re:This question is like by linguizic · · Score: 1

      If by Windows/Linux debate you mean one side is horribly incompetant and shouldn't have to do with anything regarding the debate, while the other gets marginalized because the other side shouts the loudest than you are correct.

      Linguists, with surprisingly few exceptions all agree that language is an innate property of the mind. The only people who debate this claim are those post-modernist thugs who don't want to believe that there is any innate property of the mind, and therefore no universals to the human experience. Needless to say, the denialists live in sociology, anthropology and literature departments and prat all day about Noam Chomsky (the father of modern linguistics, and the person who made the argument that language is innate clear enough to be taken seriously) having never read a single word by him.

      I myself am a linguist, and one thing that I've realized is that EVERYBODY thinks that they are experts on language, no matter how prejudicial and ignorant they are about language. So if you have never taken a linguistics course please read the Language Instinct by Steven Pinker before you pretend to know something about language.

      By the way, all that you learned was "good grammar" in public school is horseshit, "proper" grammer was invented by a couple of guys who wrote grammar books for the rich so that they could sound better than the poor. For a history of how this came about go here.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    6. Re:This question is like by iogan · · Score: 1

      Linguists, with surprisingly few exceptions all agree that language is an innate property of the mind. Um, actually this is just in the US. Where I went to school, the interactional linguistic paradigm rules pretty supremely. (Stockholm, Sweden if you're interested)

      I myself am a linguist, and one thing that I've realized is that EVERYBODY thinks that they are experts on language, no matter how prejudicial and ignorant they are about language. So if you have never taken a linguistics course please read the Language Instinct by Steven Pinker before you pretend to know something about language.

      Well, I'm also a linguist, but seriously Steven Pinker? I mean the guy is good, but it's sort of like saying "don't think you know mathematics until you've read Simon Singh.." anyway, I agree with you that people all "know" lots of stuff about language which most linguists would consider very much disproven by now.

  7. Broca's Area by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that they aren't taking weekly or monthly magnetic resonance images (MRI's) of the child's brain to track the growth of Broca's Area, a region of the brain long believed to control and develop speech.

    It was this that Carl Sagan wrote of in Broca's Brain when he speculated on our ability to speak and communicate adeptly and sets us apart from animals.

    I'd like to see this invetsigated further.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Broca's Area by peezer · · Score: 1

      I suspect that that might be difficult because if a patient's head isn't standing still the MRI can't get a decent image. And babies aren't known for keeping still on command...

  8. Footage Classifications by El_Smack · · Score: 5, Funny


    4% Pooping
    26% Fussiness
    8% Crying
    18% Eating
    21% Drooling
    22% Peek a Boo
    1% Language Acquisition

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    1. Re:Footage Classifications by cutedinochick · · Score: 1

      Only 4% pooping and 8% eating? Maybe kids aren't as bad as I thought...

    2. Re:Footage Classifications by Pastis · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's spelled

      22% Pick a Boob

    3. Re:Footage Classifications by dr_dank · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, you plagiarized my job description!

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    4. Re:Footage Classifications by 955301 · · Score: 1

      4% = 72 minutes of pooping per day. I'd say that bad.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    5. Re:Footage Classifications by OctoberSky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought Pick a Boob fell under the 18% for eating?

    6. Re:Footage Classifications by boingo82 · · Score: 1

      Ah, you didn't notice that "0% sleeping" wasn't listed.

      --
      As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
    7. Re:Footage Classifications by Misch · · Score: 1

      Imagine if it were a day on fark.com, (and that day was April 1)

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    8. Re:Footage Classifications by lorcha · · Score: 1

      They're worse than you thought. Anyhow, they sleep about 60% of the day.

      --
      "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  9. I call it... The Monroe Box! by Kenja · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Monroe: It's a special isolation chamber. The subject pulls levers to receive food and water. The floor can become electrified, and showers of icy water randomly fall on the subject. I call it... The Monroe Box!
    Grampa: Uh huh. Sounds interesting. How much will it cost to build?
    Monroe: Oh, that's the beauty part! It's already built! I need the money to buy a baby to raise in the box until the age of thirty.
    Grampa: What are you trying to prove?
    Monroe: Well, my theory is that the subject will be socially maladjusted and will harbor a deep resentment towards me.
    Grampa: Mm. Interesting.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  10. No lack of footage... by moo083 · · Score: 1

    Well, the parents won't have to regret not video taping their kid as a baby later on. They'll have possibly more footage of their baby than any other parents in the world...

  11. Baby videos? by raiofsunshine · · Score: 1

    The study itself sounds highly fascinating, but like others, I find myself wondering what the child will say in ten or twenty years. However, how many people truly object to the sharing of baby photos and home videos? It's nearly a given that people proudly display these items every chance they get. I don't think this study is going to help much, and it would most likely yield better results if the reserchers used many different babies in other households.

    --
    La la la... I'm not listing to reason today...
    1. Re:Baby videos? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      I find myself wondering what the child will say in ten or twenty years.

      Probably "he touched me here..." while pointing to a doll in the courtroom.

  12. Re:This has been done before. by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    Geez, one freaking minute and I'm redundant.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  13. call me crazy... by canning · · Score: 1

    Call me crazy but my wife and I just had a baby and the last thing I would want is for for her to become an experiment.

    How do they know that this type of intervention/interference at such an impressionable age won't have life altering reprocussions? There are just some things that should be left well enough alone and this is one of them.

    Maybe it's just me though.

    --
    I love the smell of Karma in the morning
    1. Re:call me crazy... by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not "life altering reprocussions", but certinly some degree of the Hawthorne effect..

      I'm not sure if this is universal, but whenever I go to photograph or video any kids in my family, the moment they realize they are on camera they all turn into a spastic Jim Carrey impersonator. Sure its cute, but not exactly "useful" in any scientific sense.

      What happens to the expirement when the child discovers a camera?

      Assuming all camera remain hidden for the life of the expirement: What happens to the child after being told they were secretly recorded for years and years?

    2. Re:call me crazy... by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 1

      As the parent of a 17 year old I'm really glad you feel that way. IMHO too many geeks are too interested in finding out 'how this bit works' to fully consider the humanity beneath.

      Good luck with parenting, the greatest thing you'll ever do.

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
  14. Interaction is the answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is not much more for a camera to record here (of the baby).

    The baby will make sounds constantly. More and more sounds as time progresses.

    The parents (video camera operators?) will from time to time notice sounds that sound like sounds they understand and respond very positively to these sounds.

    OH MY!!!!! I just heard the baby say XX OR XX OR XX OR XX (all references to daddy).

    All these will be thought to be something profound concerning the babies actions.

    But not due to the baby saying them, but because the baby's reaction to the parent who understands them and makes a HUGE ordeal of them.

    My daughter had 3 such moments. The first time she said the baby sounds for daddy each of the 3 languages my wife and I speak.

    We noticed and more importantly, the baby (our daughter) noticed we noticed.

    Babies make sounds all the time (some say of all languages), but parents largely define the importance of those sounds for the babies. The babies merely respond because they like the attention, especially positive, of parents who's faces they see all the time.

    I cant help but think this will teach these researchers more about how babies learn to accept new faces or events or actions as normal rather than how they learn languages.

  15. Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My major is in Computational Linguistics. This sounds like a good idea as far a research goes, but the sad fact is that this will not be enough. We already know a LOT about the developmental stages in which children begin to acquire language and the relationships between the mental dictionary lookup and the rule applying mechanisms that compete with one another to produce the fastest possible production of intelligible sentences. What we don't understand is how it happens. This study will not let us know that.

    What would be better is to develop algorithms that try and mimic the learning process we already have observed in native language acquisition and then continue to refine our algorithms until we have perfected that process. We will only know we have it right when you can take those same algorithms, put them to use by exposing it to a different language and have it still learn it right.

    --
    Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    1. Re:Computational Linguistics by drmarcj · · Score: 1

      One thing this will address is the kinds of input kids get, since we're interested in what kids have to learn from exposure vs. what they get for free from their genes (so to speak). Currently our guesses at this are based on brief recordings taken weeks apart, usually in a structured setting (see the CHILDES project at CMU for more info). A lot has been made of productions that children allegedly make without having been exposed to a model in parental speech, but we don't always know if it's true. The recordings could have missed it, given the very sparse sampling that's done. Projects like these could give us a more realistic view of what kinds of things parents say to/around kids, giving us a better idea of what they are using to learn language.

    2. Re:Computational Linguistics by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      We will only know we have it right when you can take those same algorithms, put them to use by exposing it to a different language and have it still learn it right.

      Honest question: won't your algorithms be (at least partly) based on sentence structure? I.E. "The dog went into the house" v. "Inside the house is the dog"? If so, wouldn't this force an algorithm-approach to remain language-based?

      I'm having a hell of a time learning Mandarin, simply due to the totally different sentence structure it uses (v. American English).

    3. Re:Computational Linguistics by geekpuppySEA · · Score: 1
      But mailman, building better algorithms to mimic the learning process won't exactly tell us how it happens - it will just show us one possible way that learning can happen. (Which has value, of course...) But unless our algorithms accurately mimic the scale of the child's zillions of neurons involved in language (unlikely anytime soon), we will only be building a simplistic model.


      Someone else above mentioned taking frequeent fMRI's - this would tell us more about what actually is going on.

      --
      Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
    4. Re:Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 1

      ...building better algorithms to mimic the learning process won't exactly tell us how it happens - it will just show us one possible way that learning can happen.

      That's true. I was looking at it from a practical standpoint (ie. making a robot that speaks and understands you as well as a real person might). If we are looking at the purely scientific idea of figuring out what the brain is doing, then this could have some real potential.

      I guess I was a little biased by my field of study and the focus I have been putting on machine learning rather than thinking about actual human learning.

      --
      Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    5. Re:Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 1

      won't your algorithms be (at least partly) based on sentence structure?

      Not if I can accomplish what I am really after. I want a system that can learn a language the way a human does without any preconceived ideas about how a language should sound or look like.

      I know this is a tall order, but it's still my goal.

      --
      Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    6. Re:Computational Linguistics by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the *best* kind of order: a challenge!

      You really have me intrigued here. I assume this is done by determining relationships of words based on usage, and not predefined "rules".

      Sounds to me like using ANN might be better suited to this than an algorithm, no?

      (Working on an AI parser myself, but my focus is synonyms/antonyms)

    7. Re:Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like using ANN might be better suited to this than an algorithm, no?

      You are right again. I was being sloppy with my terminology. Not a good idea for a linguist of any sort! An artificial neural network would be the way to go on something like this. Unfortunately, I don't have any practical experience with this type of research yet. I am really excited to dive in though.

      --
      Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    8. Re:Computational Linguistics by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "I want a system that can learn a language the way a human does without any preconceived ideas about how a language should sound or look like. "

      As someone who is studying computational linguistics, I am sure you are aware that there are some who argue (Chomsky, Pinker) that the human mind has built-in preconceptions about language, and that language ability is more development than learning?

      Can I assume you would argue that language is primarily learned?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    9. Re:Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 1

      Can I assume you would argue that language is primarily learned?

      While there are probably some things that are built-in to our brains that are set for language acquisition, I believe that mush of language is primarily learned. Basic traits of language are probably predestined like verbs and nouns and such. But almost ANY idea of what is built in can be disproved by counter examples in languages that have only recently been studied by Western scientists. As for myself, I'm not really sure which way I lean. I would have to say that while there is a framework of some kind in the mind about what language is, that framework is flexible and can adapt to what it is exposed to. Also, this framework may vary slightly from person to person. These are all questions that we are nowhere close to having answers to.

      --
      Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    10. Re:Computational Linguistics by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      Which language did you intend to start with?

      I love PHP myself. Sure, script kiddies have given PHP a bad name in some circles, but I have never used a more flexible language. Plus, you can run a LAMP stack on just about ANYTHING (*cough* I'm familiar with grassroots budgets *cough*).

      From what I have read, 99% of the challenge is mastering the "regular expression". PHP includes both the preg_match and preg_replace functions, both of which use these "regular expressions". The plus side is that even if you later decide to port over to something else, your math and regular expressions (i.e. the blood and guts) should be able to follow.

      I have been working on this for awhile now. If you are interested, I'll be happy to setup an admin account for you so you can go futz with it and see what I've done. I'm using Wikipedia in order to "build concepts" (rather than tags or categories). Then, using those simple regular expressions, the bot can read websites and RSS feeds and begin categorizing accordingly.

      (p.s. be honest. I don't mind constructive criticism at all. =)

    11. Re:Computational Linguistics by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      er...Which *programming* language did you intend to start with?

      Geez...for two guys into linguistics, we have a lot to learn, don't we? =)

    12. Re:Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 1

      As far as programming languages go, I hadn't really given it much though. PHP is good though because of its great flexibility.

      That project looks like a lot of fun! I would love to help out on it or at least give feedback. You can email the info to shawn [at] walkingtowel [dot] org if you want my input.

      Cool stuff you've got going on!

      --
      Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    13. Re:Computational Linguistics by mizhi · · Score: 1
      If we are looking at the purely scientific idea of figuring out what the brain is doing, then this could have some real potential.


      I think that's the point. We know a lot about when certain things occur, but we don't really know how and we're just starting to learn the progression. Infants absorb information constantly, so observing one for a couple of hours a day might provide milestones in development but provide little evidence of how those milestones are reached. That's what this project is getting at, I believe.
      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    14. Re:Computational Linguistics by kalirion · · Score: 1

      And what if it turns out that sentience is required for this kind of learning? I'm really not sure if simply knowing a language's grammar structure should count as knowing the language.

    15. Re:Computational Linguistics by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      An artificial neural network would be the way to go on something like this.

      FYI, in the machine learning community ANNs have mostly been phased out in favor of things like support vector machines, which tend to be much less prone to overfitting problems. There's a number of sources of available code, as well as variants of SVMs specialized for linguistics-style problems. I'd heartily suggest checking them out.

    16. Re:Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the information. Looks really interesting.

      --
      Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    17. Re:Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 1

      And what if it turns out that sentience is required for this kind of learning? I'm really not sure if simply knowing a language's grammar structure should count as knowing the language.

      The point here isn't to understand the sentence structure, but rather to understand what a person is saying and be able to respond to it appropriately.

      On the question of sentience: it may be required, but if it is, so what? That's all part of the plan as it is. Self-aware systems are one of the goals that are related to this line of work. I'm not trivializing the weight of the implications of this research, nor am I assuming that it is an easy task to create such things. Goals aren't always easily reached, and chances are that we will only make it to the top of the mountain while we are aiming for the moon, but at least we'll be closer than when we started.

      --
      Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
    18. Re:Computational Linguistics by kalirion · · Score: 1

      On the question of sentience: it may be required, but if it is, so what? That's all part of the plan as it is. Self-aware systems are one of the goals that are related to this line of work.

      I'm wondering, does anyone working towards self-aware systems consider implementing anything similar to Asimov's 3 Laws? I mean, a true AI with an internet connection could quite easily be the worst thing that ever happens to humanity (or the best, but it's the worst that needs to be prepared for.) I have the sneaking suspicion that no many doing "real" AI research seriously consider this type of threat, delegating it to the realm of sci-fi.

      And yes I know that Asimov's laws are full of holes, but I'm sure coming up with something that can be mathematically proven to work would be relatively easy compared to developing the AI that requires it.

    19. Re:Computational Linguistics by mailman-zero · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering, does anyone working towards self-aware systems consider implementing anything similar to Asimov's 3 Laws?

      I was thinking about them as I wrote my last response. I think you underestimate AI folks. :) Or it could be that I'm just naive.

      --
      Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
  16. Well... by nosredna · · Score: 2, Funny

    It worked out well for Ender

  17. I did something like this by Cthefuture · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when my own child was born. Back then I was working in artificial intelligence (for a commercial application, and I'm no MIT graduate) and I spend the first couple years taking meticulous notes, video, audio recordings and similar. I also worked with a few other children but not as deeply.

    What I found is that the sample size was way too small. Almost every child has vastly different development patterns and to see the big picture you need a bigger sample than one kid. We're talking about a huge effort to collect that much data on many children but I think that is what will be required to even begin to understand how it works.

    --
    The ratio of people to cake is too big
  18. It can be worst by technoextreme · · Score: 1

    Me and my brother are named after the characters in Bonanza. Adam and Ben Cartwright.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonanza

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:It can be worst by sconeu · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. I used to work with a guy named Richard Bender, and he voluntarily went by Dick. So his name was "Dick Bender".

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  19. There's no point in entering anymore... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    This family will take home the prize on all the "Funniest Home Videos" shows every time. The funniest moments with my kids always happen when we're not using the camcorder.

  20. Ever notice that what is easy is hard? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is really kind of funny but the vast majority of people teach their children how to speak yet we don't know how they they teach their children how to speak?
    Just like it is easy to write a program that can calculate sin but really hard to write one that can follow verbal directions as well as a a four year old?

    In other words it is easy to teach a machine what is taught in school.
    It is very hard to teach a machine what is taught by parents.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Ever notice that what is easy is hard? by bunions · · Score: 1

      "Just like it is easy to write a program that can calculate sin"

      I dunno, in these our modern times sin has become pretty much incalculable.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    2. Re:Ever notice that what is easy is hard? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      This is one of the greatest ironies in the world.

      Get two of the smartest, most well-read and diligent scientists together, and they can design and screate amazing wonders... Yet they still can't create anything even remotely as complex as two of the dumbest fucks (pun intended) in the world can do if they're of the opposite sexes.

      If only it were the other way around...

    3. Re:Ever notice that what is easy is hard? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Just like it is easy to write a program that can calculate sin

      I must have missed that one on the shelf at Fry's. Is there an Open Source version?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    4. Re:Ever notice that what is easy is hard? by archgoon · · Score: 1

      Get two of the smartest, most well-read and diligent scientists together, and they can design and screate amazing wonders..

      At first I thought you were trying to spell "secrete", and was disturbed by the imagery.

    5. Re:Ever notice that what is easy is hard? by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      You got that wrong. We (parents) do not teach children how to talk. They just learn it. That's what's so amazing about it.

  21. Proud first words by khendron · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope the kid's first words are something to be proud of.

    I once saw a Mother eating some take-out fast food with her gurgling offspring. The kid was very vocal but couldn't say anything more than "goo" and "ga ga." The mother was doing the traditional "say Mommy, say Mommmmeeeee" thing when the kid pointed at the logo on the paper cup and said, very clearly, "McDonalds."

    The mother did not look pleased.

    --
    Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    1. Re:Proud first words by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      That is awesome.

      I have a seventeen month old. Her first words were, I believe, Mommy and Daddy, but following very closely behind that was "kitty." Since then, our cat has been a constant source of fascination for her, and prompts a lot of conversations along these lines:

      the kid: Kitty!
      me: Yes, honey. It's a kitty!
      the kid: Lookitda kitty!
      me: I know! I see the kitty!
      the kid: Mao mao mao!!!!!

      Et cetera.

    2. Re:Proud first words by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The mother was doing the traditional "say Mommy, say Mommmmeeeee" thing when the kid pointed at the logo on the paper cup and said, very clearly, "McDonalds."

      There's one thing I still don't understand. Sure, I know that McDonalds all pervasive advertising campaign virtually assure brand recognition by age three. I know that McDonalds isn't the only company engaged in this. I know how this works.

      No. What I don't understand is why it works. Why do children fixate on McDonalds so much? What is the secret sause here? And it's not just McDonalds. Apparently, brand loyalty can be instilled before the third year.

      This perplexes me. What's driving these kids to say McDonalds before Mommy?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Proud first words by Telvin_3d · · Score: 1

      My guess would be that Mommy is letting the TV raise her kid and this baby has spent more time watching McD commercials than it has being read to by its parents.

    4. Re:Proud first words by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why it works. Why do children fixate on McDonalds so much? What is the secret sause here? And it's not just McDonalds. Apparently, brand loyalty can be instilled before the third year.

      For starters you've got the fact that a lot of the brands that go after kids have (you'll note) simple clear logo designs that tend to be in very crisp vibrant colours. If you're looking for something to imprint on a small mind then simple clear lines and bright colours are the way to go.

      In practice the real key is repetition. Small children (and even adults really) are remarkable mimicry machines. Find something short and attention grabbing and repeat ad nauseum and kids will pick it up. I imagine if you stuck a parrot in front of a TV 6 hours a day it would learn to say McDonalds pretty well too.

      Jedidiah.

    5. Re:Proud first words by GWBasic · · Score: 1
      The way that children learn words is by people saying the word and pointing to it. My guess is lots of commercials where Ronand McDonald points to a big golden "M" and says "McDonalds".

      Then again, I don't watch much children's television. It's incredibly easy to influence young children. I bought my nephew some He-Man DVDs for Christmas, and now his favorite toys at Grandma's are my old He-Man toys from the 80s.

    6. Re:Proud first words by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      My wife and I are due to have another baby in October. We never eat at McDonalds and we no longer have a television. So, my guess is that Lucy (that's her name) will not recognize McDonalds by age 3. But we will see.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    7. Re:Proud first words by sfgoth · · Score: 1

      Find something short and attention grabbing and repeat ad nauseum and kids will pick it up.

      First Post!
      .
      .
      .
      Oh.

    8. Re:Proud first words by gstoddart · · Score: 2
      There's one thing I still don't understand. Sure, I know that McDonalds all pervasive advertising campaign virtually assure brand recognition by age three. I know that McDonalds isn't the only company engaged in this. I know how this works.

      No. What I don't understand is why it works. Why do children fixate on McDonalds so much? What is the secret sause here? And it's not just McDonalds. Apparently, brand loyalty can be instilled before the third year.

      This is hardly scientific, but this is what I think:

      1) McDonald's markets into every context children will be, often with characters like Grimace which mirror the big-plush critters like Barney. It's quite insidious.

      2) Parents take their kids to McD's as a treat (or when they travel), so the kids associate it as either an exotic treat or a reward for being good. It's an event, it's highly desireable, and they equate it with happy (think, Happy Meal, think birthday parties, think toys in the Happy meal).

      3) Kids love french fries, nuggets, and little wee hamburgers specifically because it's some of the first food they can eat by themselves without needing utensils. And parents already feed their children many of these things, McD's just does a better job of it. The image of a wee kid eating french fries is pretty ubiquitous.

      4) The sugar, the fat, and the simple carbohydrates. To a young kid who gets to eat food at McD's, they're assured to get a sugar rush, and a whole bunch of simple carbohydrates which give them a further rush. These become the characteristics kids want out of food. (Hence, why the they develop bad food habits when snared so early)

      5) Mommy and Daddy take the infant there when they go for food, the child sees a visually stimulating environment, and becomes conditioned to the smells the other features of that environment. In effect, they probably imprint on it before they even *have* language being formed. Heck, I wonder if someone eats McD's and then breast feeds what that does to the child.

      6) Secret additive chemicals which are highly addictive -- McCrack as it were. (OK, I made up this last one, but number 4 above more or less says the same thing.) [ But I seem to remember seeing some stuff about how that kind of food actually had a positive effect on your mood, so it's like prozac in food form ]

      Really, the sum total of how McD's is presented to kids conspires to equate it with reward, fun, a sugar rush, and the foods they like. In short, every aspect of it gives them maximal reward, and reinforces their desires to have more of it, as well as (possibly) mood-boost from the kind of foods they're eating.

      Just my 2 cents (as an avid hater of McDonald's) and all they stand for. :-P
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  22. Who cares about the privacy of an infant? by bunions · · Score: 1

    I don't really see how this impacts the child at all. He/she is zero years old - what possible privacy concerns can you have at that point?

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    1. Re:Who cares about the privacy of an infant? by jerkmonster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is that, though the infant may not be able to "say" anything in its defense, the kid or adult that eventually emerges from said infant may feel weird about its early childhood having been exposed to the world. A society's supposed to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, not take advantage of them.

    2. Re:Who cares about the privacy of an infant? by bunions · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The kid or adult that eventually emerges from said infant may feel weird about pretty much any choice the parents make for him/her. Also, "being released to the world" makes it sound like they're showing it on Fox. It's not even clear to me from the article that humans will watch significant chunks of it.

      I can see how this argument can be made for a 3 or 5 year-old, since they are starting to have personality and make their own choices. But simply observing infants is pretty much all the same - they sleep, poop and eat.
      What's to be embarassed about? "Oh no, the world now knows I was an infant at some point in time and could not control my bowels, I am mortified!"

      I'm not really sure how this is 'taking advantage' of the baby, because I don't see how it harms him/her.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    3. Re:Who cares about the privacy of an infant? by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      I can see how this argument can be made for a 3 or 5 year-old, since they are starting to have personality and make their own choices.

      You are trying to make a rational argument about what is mostly an emotional issue.

      No, there is typically no reason to (for example) be scared of most spiders, flying in an airplane or such, yet people are even when understanding why it is unreasonable.

    4. Re:Who cares about the privacy of an infant? by jerkmonster · · Score: 1

      well there's that and then there's the completely arbitrary threshhold you're posing here. the infant grows a soul/personality at age 2.56666678 mars years.

    5. Re:Who cares about the privacy of an infant? by bunions · · Score: 1

      What I said was "3 to 5 years." I think you'll agree that's a pretty soft threshold.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  23. Am I the only one by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    Thinking of B.F. Skinner and the Skinner Box

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Am I the only one by bunions · · Score: 1

      hopefully, because there's a pretty big goddamn difference between a Skinner Box and simply videotaping someone.

      If I had to draw an analogy, I'd say it's kind of like the difference between having a police officer glare at you dissaprovingly and being jailed.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  24. Interesting by GmAz · · Score: 1
    This really interests me since I have a 7 week old baby girl. A couple my wife and I know has an 11 month old baby and they said about a few weeks ago, that everything just suddenly clicked. He started to say words and actually knows the meaning of them, started to walk and many other things in about a weeks time. Its like the light switch was finally switched on. With my baby who is much much younger, my wife and I saw a big change about 2 weeks ago. She started to react to situations the same (happy, sad, scared, etc). She has gotten more coordinated in doing certain things. Its really amazing how much they learn by instinct and by just watching the world around them.

    As for speech, I believe the learning curve for babies to talk depends on how they are spoken to. If you GooGoo and GaaGaa at them all day in gibberish baby talk, they aren't going to learn how to speak very easily. But if you talk to them as you would talk to a young child, they are more apt to speak early themselves.

    --
    Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
    1. Re:Interesting by LeeMeador · · Score: 1

      As for speech, I believe the learning curve for babies to talk depends on how they are spoken to. If you GooGoo and GaaGaa at them all day in gibberish baby talk, they aren't going to learn how to speak very easily. But if you talk to them as you would talk to a young child, they are more apt to speak early themselves.

      I always hoped my kids would be smarter than that. Only really stupid people repeat just what they hear. Smarter people are more selective.

    2. Re:Interesting by Luyseyal · · Score: 1
      As for speech, I believe the learning curve for babies to talk depends on how they are spoken to. If you GooGoo and GaaGaa at them all day in gibberish baby talk, they aren't going to learn how to speak very easily. But if you talk to them as you would talk to a young child, they are more apt to speak early themselves.

      I wish I had my Child Psych text from college with me. I used to think that, too, but there was a study noted in the text that showed that baby talk actually helped language acquisition. IIRC, the reason behind it was that gibberish exposed children to a wider variety of sounds than the every day objects babies are exposed to.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    3. Re:Interesting by assantisz · · Score: 1
      I must disagree with the "everything just suddenly clicked" statement. My experience with my now 3yo toddler is that language acquisition as well as learning how to walk etc. are gradual processes. Speaking starts with blowing raspberries, making nonsense sounds, and slowly forming vowels and consonants. I remember that my daughter's first word was "ball" (or "tree"; it's been a while). It didn't come suddenly out of nowhere; it was "grown" out of playful sounds and mimicking the surroundings.

      The same with crawling, walking, etc. Walking usually starts with the ability to pull yourself up (on furniture, for example). Then they start "cruising" around, holding onto the bookshelf. Then the kid wants to hold your hands and walk while holding you (back-breaking times, I say!), and eventually when she gathered enough courage she will let go and make her own few steps. And practices and practices.

      Anyway, congratulations to your seven week old. You are in for a long ride ;-) I hope you and your wife are getting enough sleep.

    4. Re:Interesting by catprog · · Score: 1

      According to new scientist magazine. By making baby sounds (repeating them) they repeat what you say

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  25. Obligatory by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Think of the children!

    (Someone had to say it...)

    --

    --GrouchoMarx
    Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      --GrouchoMarx
      Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

      I wouldn't want to belong to any club that accepts you as a member ;)

  26. Feral Kidlets by kid-noodle · · Score: 1

    Nix. Numerous 'feral children' have acquired (limited) language skills (most famously, Genie) - they provide an extremely poor study group for looking at language and social skills learning because a. they may have been abandoned because they were (or were percieved to be) subnormal, b. they tend to be significantly traumatised, either simply by circumstances, or by abuse (again, Genie). c. Case studies are a bugger.

    (Feral children covers a broad spectrum - we are not just talking about 'raised by wolves' here)

    Regarding the main topic - this has characteristics uncomfortably like the Forbidden Experiment (bring up a child in a totally controlled, isolated environment - see what happens), and making the footage publically available worries me - did they cut a deal with Fox for the funding?

    --
    fortune -o
  27. Re:This has been done before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Redundant moderation is the price which Nature exacts for pursuing the low hanging fruit of Internet discussion."

    -Lao Tze, c. 500 BC

  28. Big Brother? by uniqueUser · · Score: 1

    Is this realy Big Brother? or is it science? What is it with these headlines?

    --
    GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
  29. Final Cut by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

    Agreed to a point. This seems pretty harmless. It's a little more personal than baby photos and home videos since it's constant, but probably no more exciting to anyone. It doesn't sound like there is any intent to keep recording data beyond the age of 2 or 3 anyways.

    This is going to yield a huge dataset! I imagine a couple CS majors could make a good senior project out of writing the sorting algorithms. I'd be kind of interesting to see a follow-up on how they're going to go about that. The kind of data analysis I typically do, even when I'm looking at a few hundred megs of data, I can typically sort down to peak or rate values very quickly with simple software. Even high energy physics research that can generate terrabytes of data per experiment I suspect can be broken down the same way with a decent amount of raw processing power. This research, however, will be sifting through a huge set of similar data and looking for subtle effects.

    The overall experiment reminds me much more of The Final Cut than The Truman Show like others have suggested. Obviously that movie was far more personal in its intrusion, but it was basically about privacy versus (somewhat public) memory. The writers obviously recognized the scale of the data generated, too. They introduced a special computer called a Guillotine that seperated a persons life into clips by category.

    1. Re:Final Cut by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, I just watched this movie last night for the first time. Interesting movie. I really liked the editing workstation they called, guillotine. That movie was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this article post.

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
  30. Segfaults? by 19061969 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Quoth the article: "All the footage is being classified by algorithms."

    Ha! Just imagine what an algorithm would say when it fills its nappy: "Core dump - segfault at location @r$e."

    --
    bang goes my karma... again...
  31. Iterative refinement by hey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First baby thows out an early prototype. eg "Ga-ga". This is praised
    however some constructive critism by the clients (parents) is offered - eg "Da-da". Baby then adapts the first prototype and re-demos it for the users and clients. And so on.

    By the time version 3 (years) is reached baby is still in the iterative refinement design and development mode. For example: "I eated dinner". The user-clients offer "I ate dinner" as a correction that is a new feature in version 3.5.

    1. Re:Iterative refinement by dsci · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points; You should be modded +5 Right On.

      I have a three year old and an 11 mo. old, so we are in both stages right now. It seems to me to be about a constant input-praise-input cycle. My three year old's vocabulary is increasing so rapidly it is amazing to witness, and the young one is trying so hard to communicate (sometimes anyway; others it is just 'can I make noise?').

      On the topic of being recorded 14 hrs a day, I sure would not want that. Maybe it is just personal preference waving its head, but I doubt the scientific insight to come from this experiment would outweigh the intrusion/invasion factor.

      --
      Computational Chemistry products and services.
  32. He is to be commended... by Yoda2 · · Score: 1

    Sure there are some ethical questions surrounding this, but he is making a huge personal sacrifice in the name of science and has insured that reasonable safeguards are in place. This could provide incredible insights into the language acquisition process.

  33. In other news... by Se7enLC · · Score: 1


    The father and mothers friends, family, and neighbors will stop returning their calls after the second time they hear "come see the video of everything junior did today!"

    Junior's first girlfriend will die of starvation after 36 straight hours of family videos.

    Junior will spend the second 5 years of his live watching what he did for the first 5 years of his life. That 5 year event will be recorded and used to determine how people learn by watching videos of themselves learning.

  34. Be afraid. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1
    Will all this result in a kid with an unhealthy fixation toward being in front of camera lenses?

    ...Ye gods, this must be where Hilton sisters come from!!

  35. Children as science by AriaStar · · Score: 1

    I've got a moral objection to a child being used for research like this. Aside from growing up fixated on cameras, has anyone given thought to how this child will feel as an adult knowing that mommy and daddy allowed him (her?) to be watched for more than half the hours in a year for research purposes? "Yeah, my parents sold my babyhood for science. I was a labrat!" When a camera is aimed, the behavior of those present tends to change, so this will also affect the interactions between parents and baby. I can only hope the money made will be put into an interest-bearing fund for the child's future therapy or college education rather than the parents getting the money.

    1. Re:Children as science by natet · · Score: 1
      "Yeah, my parents sold my babyhood for science. I was a labrat!"

      I believe the proper term for this is a "lab-brat"

      --
      IANAL... But I play one on /.
    2. Re:Children as science by AriaStar · · Score: 1

      Correct you are! Have you ever seen a child so used to all eyes on him/her? My cousin's baby, Eva, screams bloody murder if attention doesn't remain on her, literally. These parents are going to regret doing this.

    3. Re:Children as science by NoNsense · · Score: 1

      But these are fish-eye cameras on the ceiling, unless you point them out, the kid will never know they are on camera.....

      --
      So there.
    4. Re:Children as science by AriaStar · · Score: 1

      So for the kid to be filmed 14 hours per day, they'll need to keep the kid in the same room(s) for a year. No going outside and doing other activities where development happens.

  36. while this may be the most common way... by m1ndrape · · Score: 1

    but what about those who are deaf, how do they go about aquiring language without audio?

    and let's not forget the autistic who at 13 years old swear they only woke up to the world around them when a keyboard was placed in front of them.

    --
    Donald Ray Moore Jr. (mindrape)
    Suspected Terrorist
  37. The kid who stopped talking by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    I wish I could remember where I read about this... it was decades and decades ago... but there was a case of a child who was brought to a psychiatrist because he had suddenly and completely stopped talking. The psychiatrist was asking the parents for details, and they said, beamingly, "Oh, here are our notebooks." They brought out an enormous stack of notebooks in which they had written down everything the child had said.

    At some point, the child became disturbed by this and simply stopped talking.

    The psychiatrist told the parents to stop writing down what the child said, and in due course he made a full recovery.

    Moral: The observation process affects what is being observed.

    1. Re:The kid who stopped talking by Philnet.HFZ · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Schrödinger's cat expiriment (the very act of observing has an effect on the outcome)...

      except that the child isn't being left in a box with a potentially harmful substance for an undetermined amount of time...

      --
      I don't get why posts are limited to 120 characters. Seems unreasonable to me. I mean, just because I like having a real
  38. That's fine ... by MrNougat · · Score: 1
    --
    Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
  39. Ha! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see them come close to the footage my wife takes!

    Hell, her still photos could be used as a flipbook.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  40. eh-Widdeh by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    It's been done before. Back in the '60s or early '70s or so.

    A language-acquisition researcher recorded her daughter's waking activities continuously for several years as she developed language.

    One interesting thing to come out of this was that, as one point (I think about the three-word utterance stage) the kid started using this word that sounded something like "ehWIDdeh". (I don't recall exactly how the researcher spelled it but that's about what it sounded like.) It was never really clear what she meant by it, but she seemed to understand it and use it consistently herself. Eventually she stopped using it.

    Interestingly, after the experiment was over, momma showed the films to daughter and asked her if she knew what she had meant back then. Daughter had no clue, either.

    (Last I heard the leading speculation was that it was a placeholder, for when kid knew she wanted to emit a particular syntax but didn't have the word she wanted to put in that place yet. But everybody knows they're just guessing.)

    Doing the experiment again with another kid, better equipment, and computer aid should be valuable. In fact, doing it several times would be even more valuable. But let's not treat it like it's something brand new.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  41. The procedure has already been explanated by Maikel_NAI · · Score: 1

    Human brain maturation procedure during the speech learning period recorded for the first time by Spanish researchers:

    http://www.astroseti.org/vernew.php?codigo=13

    --
    Faith does not move mountains, but drills can go through it.
  42. Communist Baby? by cheap_tibet · · Score: 1

    Do you have any idea where your child might have learned about Chairman Mao? Perhaps your babysitter is a pinko.

    1. Re:Communist Baby? by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Actually, her nanny is Russian!

      (Well, ethnically Russian, but from Ukraine)

  43. worst dinner party EVER by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

    If you go to their house and they offer to show you "a couple of" baby movies, for God's sake say "NO."

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  44. Two things: by soupforare · · Score: 1

    I thought this kind of study wasn't allowed anymore.
    Doesn't the ability to cease data collection invalidate any insight that might be provided?

    --
    --- Do you believe in the day?
  45. I hate to tell you... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    I hate to burst your bubble, but Babies sleep a lot of the time. Certainly more than zero percent.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  46. Observation causes change by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    I'm no scientist, but I recall that just by observing something, you are inherently changing it. While it may be subtle and unnoticable ("hidden" cameras on a beach or home that no one notices), but things are not unchanged.

    Just the fact that the parents know there is recording going on is going to modify things. The extra time they take to deal with it and delete things is going to modify how the child learns.

    I'm not saying it's not cool, but it's not without some effects (even if small) on the child. Sine the parents know about the taping and have control of it, it's going to be a bigger change that if not.

  47. NOVA special by Donut2099 · · Score: 1

    'How Nerds Form'

  48. Segfaults interesting by Patrik+Arvhult · · Score: 1

    Some of them really go segfault / kernel panic and cannot be rebooted. A massive study why this happens could be interesting.

  49. Re:Proud first words - corporation teach our kids! by ehud42 · · Score: 1

    When our kids where quite young - pre-school age, just learning their ABC's, we were driving through the city and it was scary how many logos / corporate signs the kids were 'reading'! And not just McDonalds (known for being kid friendly), but also BeaverLumber, Safeway, Royal Bank!

    The weird part was, they were about 2 & 4 and we had _just_ got a TV, so it wasn't like they had years of commercials as an excuse.

    --
    I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!