Alison Gopnik: What do babies think?

Physically, and emotionally, being a baby is very similar to being drunk.

Alison Gopnik ? You mean Alison Gopnitsa

ПОЧЕМУ Н РУССКОМ НАЗВАНИЕ и описание

what does Gopnik even mean ?

8

No addidas tracksuit no gopnik!

A Gopnik female? Nyet Nyet Nyet.

Alison Gopnik... no.No cheeki breeki.

Goy chicken.

I just read Ms. Gopnik's article on David Hume in The Atlantic (online magazine) and was motivated to check out her TED Talk. I was impressed with her exuberance for her subject. I am amazed how she can be so accomplished both in her academic field and her personal interest in philosophical history. Her bout with depression, which in most sufferers results in lethargy and apathy, seemed to motivate her to ever greater effort to find a philosophical cure. This led to her investigation of a possible exposure of the philosopher David Hume to the tenets of Buddhism. I am in awe of someone who can excel at so many things. Maybe she has maintained the childlike capacity to learn and experiment that most adults seem to lose as they age..

She looks like Keanu Reeves

Like all theoretical science failures, (usually from idiot scientists who rarely leave the confines their utopian - synthesized, unachievable world), her examples never exemplify reality. We have crows who routinely come smashing into the side of the house, barn, etc., often to their demise, and, witness 'some' chickens routinely carry out very precise and coordinated efforts of survival when it comes to things, like, being attacked, finding, and collecting food when it's abundant - for times when it's not, and proceeding to protect their young, or eggs, with uncannily devised systematic plans of escape, etc., that (successfully) assure their survival.
This is what's ALWAYS wrong with modern science. We no longer have "real" ingenious people, capable of WANTING to find truthful and honest, scientific facts. When we were exploding as the international hub for ingenious invention and ideas, we were actually, succeeding in designing and constructing permanent-working SOLUTIONS using scientific theories proven to be, scientific facts!
Today, we're functioning off a world of "science based" aggregates of numbered successes and failures? Which is precisely why, medications only "seem to work" -  rather, mask the ailments, on certain percentages of the populous.
Keep on eye on this pseudo science. It's only going to get worse now that psychology has demanded, it and its methods of insanity should be science's CEO, and of course, science already having been infiltrated by the anti-God, anti-child, anti-human, anti-family - ANTI-SOCIETY-SUCCESS forces, it was all too recklessly eager to oblige the lunatic's taking it over.

Only out of communist central - (Berkeley) could we expect something like this to come lathering, so proudly out of a radical child and family hating, communist moron, under the guise of scientific inquiry.
QUOTE: "I mean after all, if you look at babies, superficially - they seem pretty useless, and ACTUALLY, - in MANY WAYS, they're worse than useless because we have to put so much time and effort into just keeping them alive."
Don't be fooled by the timely insertion of "superficially."  For, as all communist zealots using rhetorical front matter-wording - do, it is merely the clever backdrop for her point of 'fact' which by the way, she then fully negates and crosses out the adjective, (superficially) mid-sentence of her first directive, and inserts her adverb structured intent by her clarification using: "I MEAN - ACTUALLY." - So, it is no tiny misstep. It's her true and very relevant belief. ". . . I mean actually - in many ways, [babies] are worse than useless. . . ."
It's really too bad, some moronic parents "put so much time and effort into 'just' keeping this [baby] alive." Clearly, Berkeley's campus environment and this nation of God hating institutional poison, would be one "useless" well fed mouth - closer to respecting life in general.
Isn't it interesting these people can get away with these superficially labeled, "intellectual" discussions, and NEVER get called on the carpet for the obese violation of their own "tolerance" credo - forced down our throats because it's the only way to conquer our once supreme, national pride and ingenuity that can only come forth from a nation respecting of God first, and all life, second!?
It's also perplexing that, an apparent, "spiritual" matter comes to the occasion whenever these people open their mouths. They're seemingly, either, always ugly to begin with (case in point) or can even be, "superficially" good looking, right up to the point they start espousing their hatred of humanity, then they "ACTUALLY" become ACTUALLY ugly! It works the other way as well. Some who appear to be so ugly "superficially" become some of the most beautiful people in our nation when they express their ACTUAL and REAL respect for God and Life.

Even though I agree with the idea, the way it was proven was very flawed. the baby's chose the unexpected test result, but what do you think the poles would be in a proper study like a thousand babies . Also the idea is being presented in such a dumbed down way that  I barely learned anything. Good point bad talk.

lol her is Gopnik

What is the 'right' balance between letting children find out themselves how the world works (trial-and-error; experimentation) and teaching them what we know to speed up the learning process (constantly re-inventing the wheel in every area is time-consuming; their attention could be allocated to more 'interesting' areas)?

I believe the point was that according to this study, children are better at forming "unlikely hypotheses" than adults. The child they showed formed just five different hypotheses before finding the correct configurations.

Well it has been a month since I watched the video but as I recall there was an experiment in which children had to light a detector using some blocks, and the child they showed tried many different arrangements before getting it right; and then they used this experiment to claim kids are more conscious than adults... my point is that put in that same experiment adults can also use trial and error; this is in fact an extremely basic problem solving method.

Which one?