Hacker News Reader

Comment by alttab | Hacker News Reader

Absolutely incredible. Emotional state is even more powerful than logic. The baby knows the mother is right there and could still sense something was wrong.

View on HN

Little children, babies included are pretty clever. Eye contact right after being born, tracking people, recognizing faces of close family at a few days to a few weeks.

I never get enough of observing these little minds at work and how they take in the world around them, fascinating.

How is yours?! When was it born?

Just a helpful tip to those without kids: Most parents prefer that you don't refer to their children as "it", even if you don't know the gender. Remember, you wouldn't refer to someone's partner or cofounder as "it". ;)

How are you supposed to do it since you don't know the gender? Honest question. I am not a native speaker.

Safest (as in least likely to offend) ways would be to use "he/she" or rephrase w/o the gendered pronoun as in "when was your child born?".

Traditionally, male-gendered is used for unknown sex, though some object to that.

Which leads to the question - had this been repeated daily - can training make logic overcome the emotion at such a young age? Can the same situation be turned in to a "game"?

yes, and you may end up with a psychopath child http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Or somebody with full blown npd (narcissistic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disord...

Pick your poison.

That experiment was actually painful to watch.

I agree, I found it very uncomfortable. And only 2 minutes!

Yeah, it was horrible. Imagine what it would do to a child to be brought up in an environment that cold and unresponsive. :-(

There are some horrific examples of just this in the dark past of psychotherapy if you care to take a look. Once was enough for me!

You may end up with one anyway, no?

Unlikely. Emotions are hardwired into you, and at least all other mammals. It'd be like hoping to train yourself to not need to eat -- your biology doesn't allow it.

That's a terrible idea. It's not about the baby feeling unsafe, or drawing a bad logical conclusion; it's about the emotional need for love and affection and interaction.

If I had a friend who tried this -- who gave me a cold, non-interactive stare for two minutes on a daily basis -- I'd be profoundly disturbed. And I'm an adult. I can comprehend the rationale behind it; a baby can't. I can find other friends; a baby has one or two immutable social contacts. I have deep emotional reserves, and can maintain control through hours or even days of loneliness and boredom; a lonely baby is reduced to uncontrolled tears in minutes. I can take care of myself; a baby's only hope of happiness is his ability to trust his parents' faithfulness.

What would it be like? What would it be like if the one person in the world who keeps you emotionally healthy, whose faithfulness keeps you feeling loved and happy instead of profoundly lonely, the only person you really know and trust, the person whose interaction is defining for you what human interaction means . . . what would it be like if they regularly did this?

I don't want to know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com