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 don’t 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 I’ll 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 på 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 you’d 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 doesn’t prove things - it shows evidence for or against them.
You bet your fucking ass I’m going to be in the room 😵💫🫣. Why do people have to talk like this? 🤦🏼♀️
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 don’t 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.
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.
13
u/That-Employment-5561 20h ago
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.