wedrifid comments on On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback] - Less Wrong

20 Post author: MBlume 05 July 2012 07:12PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (87)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 July 2012 08:35:53PM 2 points [-]

Yes indeed. Doesn't seem to affect their later speech, AFAIK, and reduces frustration.

Sweet. As soon as they invent babies that don't have any bodily functions I'm going to parent one and it'll be sign language from the start.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 05 July 2012 08:46:01PM -1 points [-]

Language is a bodily function.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 July 2012 08:49:34PM *  9 points [-]

Language is a bodily function.

Saying "shit, eat, drool, wee, vomit, burp, ooze snot, etc" sounds crude and there is a reasonable chance that I would forget something. There are so many gross fluid related things that humans do, especially when they have minimal control of themselves. I think the euphemism is fairly common.

Comment author: TimS 05 July 2012 08:40:47PM 0 points [-]

Babies don't seem to be able to learn to sign all that sooner than they learn to talk.

Comment author: juliawise 08 July 2012 11:58:02PM 0 points [-]

They're like chimps for a while - the hands work better than the mouths. I babysat a kid who could sign "more", "drink", "cereal", and "banana" before she could say anything useful. Also, the signs are designed to be easy, while the most useful English words were not (otherwise "ba" and "um" would mean something useful, because those are usually the first sounds we manage.)