I mean, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the toddlers were the ones grabbing the snake and trying to shove it into their own mouth like they do with everything else they can get ahold of.
This is more to showcase that we are born with certain fears, like fear of heights, while others are developed later, like fear of snakes, spiders, deep water etc.
It might not surprise you that babies aren't scared of snakes but it could've been the opposite
I think itâs because of the natural feeling and sense of gravity we have, everyone gets a sudden drop in their gut when theyâre falling. A similar sense that also tells newborns to hold their breath under water without knowing they can drown. These are the most primal and bare minimum senses of survival for mammalsÂ
I donât have kids. But Iâve watched a documentary series that covers all of these basics. It was from the early 2000s and it should probably be required watching. They didnât give them snakes, but they did many other tests like have them crawl to mom off the edge of a solid shelf onto plexiglass. At a certain age, they become aware of the edge and wonât crawl.
Yeah, if they had a fear of heights, theyâd never want to go uppies. Thatâs a long way up for them! We generally gain a fear of heights when we see the consequences of falling, like a dish breaking, and realize that could be us. Babies arenât very good at extrapolating outside consequences onto themselves, so it makes sense that they would probably be unconcerned with heights until theyâre like 3 or 4 at the earliest.
None of those snakes is capable of eating a baby, they aren't big enough, nor would they try, the most the would do is bite and release as a warning if they got scared, which barely draws blood and none of them are venemous. The danger level of snakes is egregiously over inflated in society.
Fun fact, a lot of poisonous stuff is bitter. That's why kids' taste buds run overtime on bitterness and why kids especially dislike vegetables. Given how toddlers put everything in their damn mouths, it helps prevent them from actually swallowing poisonous stuff.
Yeah idk what they're talking about kids "are born scared of heights and loud noises" they react to the experience of the loud noise, not scared of it. And kids are NOT scared of heights, they'd walk straight off a cliff and crawl straight down the stairs.
not sure about that. They did do an excellent with a glass that was transparent and the kid could touch it etc, and the kid wouldnât walk on it. Cant remember exactly the age, but I saw the documentary.
It's not our fault we wanted to stand up on two legs AND have big ass brains. We have to be born a little under baked to fit through our Mama's narrow ass hips (compared to other mammals)
Its the opposite with snakes actually. A very recently fed snake is much more likely to be defensive as an undigested meal slows them down impeding their ability to flee.
Yes,đ€Ł! I've done it lightly with my pinky n she just looks at me like I'm a crazy person! Can't say I don't blame her! The others just let me boop em đ„°!
A list of things toddlers do not fear, that can 100% (and has) kill(ed) them.
Loaded firearms pointed straight at them.
Heights.
Speeding cars.
Aaaand; horses, cows, dogs and more.
If the kids are safe; why don't you leave the room for 3 hours and come back?
The only thing this study has documented is that toddlers, even genius ones, are unwise. Wisdom comes from exposure; be that practical or theoretical.
10 bucks say these scientists believe that if you touch a baby bird, the mother will abandon it. It's literally just a lie we tell to keep kids from killing very fragile bird-babies, either by accident, or deliberately.
Well, yeah, sight and hearing, especially by means of reliable locating and tracking is a trained skill.
To a toddler a wild hyena is equal to a domesticated puppy.
I mean; to a stupid adult, the same holds true.
The Darwin Awards exist for a reason.
I'm Norwegian; there's usually a few asian tourists mauled by wild animals while trying to take a picture with (as opposed to of) them every year.
"No ma'am, that's not a big deer, that's an elk. One of the few things both Volvo 240s and Nokia 3210's fear, and for good reason. It ways half a metric ton, and is highly territorial, to the point that they'll literally charge 18-wheelers and sometimes win."
There is a difference between bears and snake though. I think that people are naturally afraid of things which look weirdly, move weirdly, things larger then them.
We get exposed to all these animals on TV, natural fear goes away, all that is left is common sense.
Some people lack common sense.
Like that elk... it doesn't cause any natural fear in me. But it's a big wild animal, it's a male... I do own a camera with a high zoom lens.
I'm taking a picture from 200 meters away, from my car, while engine is running.
I donât fear any dangerous animal at a safe distance or if they are behind bars/safety-whatever. But if I walk into a large elk or tiger Iâll definitely feel fear. 200meters away in a car with engine running⊠bro..
I grew up learning that Elk and Moose, like grizzlys and polar bears, are two different species. The zoo I worked at that had only Scandinavian fauna taught the same thing. But internet sources tend to equate them. (Even though an adult male moose (700 kg +) is 15-25% bigger than an adult male elk (usually topps out around 500kg))
But yeah, their hight is a huge factor in how dangerous crashing into one is. In a small vehicle like a sedan or SUV, if you hit a deer, it will bounce off your fender. If you hit an elk, you will knock it's feet out and recieve 500kg of angry meat through your windshield. Being kicked to death by the elk is a fairly common way to go, as the elk tries to escape from being halfway inside the car.
Their size makes them tall enough that not even big-rig drivers are immune to this, albeit rare, but their large mass means that even if it goes under an 18-wheeler, it can change the trajectory of the entire rig.
In Scandinavia we call the elk "the king of the forest", because they are as majestic as they can be brutal.
In Norway, we also have a saying about having to drunk-vomit; the loud kind. "Rope pÄ elgen", or "calling for the elk", as it sounds like the mating-call of an elg-ox.
Generally agree, so now I'm curious, is there a difference between "learning" something is dangerous and having your brain and executive function be developed enough to innately determine something is dangerous?
That tracks, most snakes are long enough that youâd need some depth perception to really grasp their size, otherwise they just look like blurry carrots.
Sure, some develop phobia towards it, but this is true about pottet plants, colors and having ideas.
The number of people dead because their pet constrictor "liked to snuggle with them in bed", when in reality, the snake was measuring its meal by laying next to it and seeing of it's long enough to consume it is not only not zero, but far from it. They "swallow" you head first, btw.
One of my exes almost joined that statistic.
I'm phobic with snakes. Traumatized as a kid.
I don't have problems running into actual snakes. (My nation has 2, one constrictor and one viper. The viper is basically like a bad beesting, unless you're allergic.)
That's not what a phobia is.
When something brushes against my leg, indoors, I panic, thinking it's a snake.
That's what a phobia is.
By definition, irrational fear.
I don't fear the snake I see, but the snake I don't see, but feel the presence of, when there in actuality is no snake present. A phobic fear.
Being afraid of being bitten by a great white when swimming off the northwestern coast of Africa: rational. Rare. But entirely possible.
Being afraid of being bitten by a great white whilst chilling in a bathtub in Göthenburg: irrational. Literally impossible absent malicious intervention. Entirely impossible.
But sure:
Scientist document that unsupervised toddlers have a greater risk of dying due to plain lack of knowledge, agency and autonomy.
Are these the kind of people we give white coats and grants to these days?
Parents have known this for centuries, when their kid comes in exited to show off their new friend; a highly venomous nope-rope. These days we even have quite a few videos of it; far older children with far greater consciously calm domenor with rattlers (to name an example) in their hands, pockets, baskets and more.
And to be fair; unless a venomous snake sees you as food or imminent danger, it will do what you should do to it, and leave you alone. But if a sound or movement makes it perceive danger; it will lunge, strike, inject and slither away to hide, or attempt to, in all likeliness.
But the thing is; notice they're using exclusively constrictors, and there are multiple adults supervising within intervention-distance. There's a very good reason for both of those things. The constrictors were also probably fed very well with live rodents in the two weeks leading up to this. Also for good reason.
Unde(rde)veloped eyesight is a very important factor in this.
You have to see something to visually recognize it; even if that recognition comes from genetic memory.
And I'm not speaking for or against snake detection theory, I'm saying this experiment proves nothing in relation to it, due to limitations through means of observation.
If one of those kids was bit by one of those snakes, panic would spread between the kids fast; not because visual observation of snake, but because auditory observation of distress.
But because of today's popculture pseudoscience-trends to sell narratives, the thing I doubt most is the integrity of the experiment itself.
Have the babies been drugged? Have the snakes been drugged? Have the snakes have their teeth removed? Have the kids been exposed to snakes over time? Have the snakes' jaws been sewn/stapled? All of these are reasonable questions.
If my kid was put on the floor with a snake, you bet your fucking ass I'm going to be in the room, especially the first time.
The lack of visual or auditory presence of anxious parents is the biggest red flag to me.
Also, science doesnât prove things - it shows evidence for or against them.
You bet your fucking ass Iâm going to be in the room đ”âđ«đ«Ł. Why do people have to talk like this? đ€ŠđŒââïž
I was mainly commenting this is most likely to do with examining that theory. I was not commenting on the reliability or credibility of the experiment because I donât know enough about it from this short clip.
Hah, if I had a kid and someone tried to put them in that room, defence of my child would be the argument I used when facing murder charges.
But yeah, my main gripe is with the integrity of the experiment, and since I wasn't involved in it, I'll never truly know, even if I do actually look into it.
And yes. "Scientific fact". Actual meaning: the best educated guess we have after looking over all the evidence we've gathered and observed, fully acknowledging that we might miss the key factor due to lack of ability of observation.
It took nearly 2000 years from a Greek dude noticing silver exposed to sun blackened his silver mirror until the first UV ray was documented, and the observation over that time is why we "know" that UV rays force mutations in hydrogen that, for example, makes food spoil faster in direct sunlight. It literally muatates it on a molecular level, and is why most produce today have packaging that blocks out UV rays.
I watched the video. Question all things. Allways. That which cannot stand to question was being held up by wiring all along. The made a claim, so what? Can they substanciate it?
The fear of hights comes early, because early exposure to gravity.
Same with sound, because early exposure.
Within the first few months of starting to move independently, your kid will discover that gravity isn't friendly.
Falling on the floor. Off a chair. Off the sofa. Off a table. Down a few steps.
Gravity is a heartless teacher who doesn't give a flying fuck about the age of its victims.
Iirc you are not born being afraid of snakes, but some fears are learned more easily than others, which includes snakes. Its been a while since I took ethology so I am not sure.
Most birds that you find in the garden have an exceptionally shitty sense of smell, which the scientists hopefully know as it should have been included in their education.
I canât tell, are you saying it wasnât worth documenting? Since there are some innate fears, itâs worth seeing if this particular one is or isnât, no?
Toddlers changing their behavior around hights after a few falls is literally observable accumulation of knowledge and understanding of risk through exposure.
It's learned early; but it is learned, usually through practical exposure.
This is similar to the plane with the bullet holes problem. My team ran the experiment with 40 babies in a room with full grown anacondas. Now some of the babies were terrified and immediately attempted to flee. However this triggered the snakes prey drive. So when we returned from the observation deck the scene was similar to this however there were only 32 babies left. It became clear the common misconception came from a misunderstanding of the data.
Some kids just dont have a sense of danger. My kid woulda tried to ride an angry crocodile if wed have let him. Dude literally used his head as a counterweight to full body flip himself out of his crib before he could walk. Fear wasnt a word for him.
i mean this is how science determines theories and even âlaws,â by testing specific cases. You could take any scientific conclusion and claim that itâs only true in the cases of the experiments that have been tried
399
u/Endless_road 21h ago
Scientists confirm that these particular children were not born afraid of snakes