Take a photo of a barcode or cover
fiandaca 's review for:
The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us about the Mind
by Patricia K. Kuhl, Andrew N. Meltzoff, Alison Gopnik
I was sorely disappointed by this book. I had heard a lot of people raving about; but when I think about it, I don't remember if the raves came from child-free people or from parents. I thought this would be an important book for me, as a parent, to read. My impression of it, however, was that it was written by college professors who wanted a light, fun, superficial, yet scientific, quick read, pseudo-textbook to use with their undergrads. The examples of children and children's behavior were either limited to experiments or were phrased in that vague, over-generalizing way often used by people who don't have children or who had them so long ago they can only remember the generalities.
Still, I guess it was revolutionary in 1999, when this book was published, to assert that babies, newborns even, could actually think! I found this assertion obvious in 2007, having had 21 months of getting to know my son and having read a fair number of parenting books. But maybe that's just me?
I did like the information on page 38 about two year olds' need to test conflict, not for the sheer sake of it, but to understand it. Chapter 5, comparing human minds to computers, was incredibly boring, and to me, absolutely demeaning. I am not a computer, my brain is not a computer. I don't believe using a human-created object such as a computer, is a valid way to look at or understand the human brain (or mind) and I find examples comparing thinking to using computer programs trite and insulting. Again, perhaps just me.
If you've read anything by William and Martha Sears, any homebirth-focused book, any modern child development book (except maybe Baby Wise), then there is no need for you to waste your time with the Scientist in the Crib.
Still, I guess it was revolutionary in 1999, when this book was published, to assert that babies, newborns even, could actually think! I found this assertion obvious in 2007, having had 21 months of getting to know my son and having read a fair number of parenting books. But maybe that's just me?
I did like the information on page 38 about two year olds' need to test conflict, not for the sheer sake of it, but to understand it. Chapter 5, comparing human minds to computers, was incredibly boring, and to me, absolutely demeaning. I am not a computer, my brain is not a computer. I don't believe using a human-created object such as a computer, is a valid way to look at or understand the human brain (or mind) and I find examples comparing thinking to using computer programs trite and insulting. Again, perhaps just me.
If you've read anything by William and Martha Sears, any homebirth-focused book, any modern child development book (except maybe Baby Wise), then there is no need for you to waste your time with the Scientist in the Crib.