Title: Critiquing Baillargeon
Jean,
Well, actually, it is explained in terms of habituation/dishabituation. Baillargeon finds that babies dishabituate or recover when shown the impossible event, but they dont dishabituate to the possible event. She interprets this as evidence that babies can
Wallace Dixon wrote:
Baillargeon finds that babies dishabituate or “recover” when shown the
“impossible” event, but they don’t dishabituate to the possible event...
Wouldn't this suggest the opposite...if they understood gravity or the nature of
matter, wouldn't they be unable to get over the
Nancy,
No, because when you dishabituate to something, it means you notice a
difference between the way a thing is and the way it was or should be.
Babies dishabituate, in Baillargeon's interpretation, precisely because they
notice a violation of the law of object permanence. In your terms,
Also, in the original study there was an experimental and control
condition, with rotating screens with and without the wooden blocks.
Children in both conditions habituated to a moving screen rotating
180 degrees. Infants in the control condition saw the same sequence of
screen movements but
No, it's precisely because they do have such understandings (if you accept
a nativist explanation) that the violation confuses them, as it would
adults.
-Mike Lee
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wallace Dixon wrote:
Baillargeon finds that babies dishabituate or “recover” when
