Infant gaze shows researcher what babies are thinking

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    May 4, 2012 4:36 p.m.

    Lyle, actually Aunt Ardie is just unable to do much with babies anymore, though she might still be able to make an observation without carrying a baby around, which she really enjoyed. She is 90. Her daughter-inj-law credits her with saving her (daughter-in-law) when she was dealing with twin sons who had an abundance of energy. A.A. would say they had mischief in their eyes, since they acted on it later. I doubt she would go along with some of Dr. Spelke's conclusions. It was an interesting article, though, and I agree that babies are more aware than we might think.

  • Lyle Springville, UT
    May 4, 2012 3:26 p.m.

    Nan, since you refer to your Aunt Ardie in the past tense, it sounds like she is no longer with us. Which is a shame, because it would be interesting to see what she would have to say to Dr. Spelke. I suspect there are a lot of "baby experts" like her out there with a huge amount of untapped knowledge. Thanks for sharing...

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    May 3, 2012 3:03 p.m.

    I have a cantankerous aunt who loves babies (but not many children or adults). When my second daughter was born she was holding her at three days of age and noted that the baby followed me with her eyes. Aunt Ardie said, "This is a smart baby; she is keeping her eyes on her mom."

    That "baby" later graduated the top of the statistics department at BYU, and when she finished her masters in statistics she said it was one of the easiest things she ever did. I don't know if Aunt Ardie was truly a baby expert or if it was a good guess. I barely made it through introduction to statistics myself so we can't blame heridity for the "smart" prediction.