Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
EliPage

Why people believe?

352 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherapy
4 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

chase1-smiley.gif?1292867566

Alrighty who's your editor?  You don't have one? what book did that come out of ?  Yes just having fun ahaha!

chase2-smiley.gif?1292867566

Oh yeah, Hammer is a charmer, a pure one, he actually does sees through the eyes of love. He is one of my heroes, and he knows why. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Do yourself a favor, still google it. I think you still have the time. ;) 

 I had already by then. It formed the basis for a couple of my posts/responses  It does not explain the construction of god concepts in very young children, or a t least offers only a very partial explanation   The term pre-linguistic was used for infants who can not yet form spoken words, however we know tha t children are thinking with  quite a wide vocabulary and sophisticated concepts, before they are a year old and thus while still pre linguistic. We also know thus that these concepts form, or are constructed, internally and are not learned from outside sources A child will develop its own 'god concept equivalent" even if it never hears such ideas or terms spoken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

To identify, not teach themselves something that wasn't placed into the awareness from the beginning. How does the link and your point's of infants awareness explain how they teach themselves something that wasn't placed into their awareness in the first place? Like God, that is not being taught by non-believing parents. You still argue the point that because of the infant's awareness of it's surroundings, it's teaching themselves about religion. Yet, there is not logical way of showing the connection. 

Because in human cognition Thoughts are NOT "placed into an awareness" They actually evolve internally via observation experimentation and learning  We CONSTRUCT every thought we have using our own mind.

 Most of our inner understandings are not imposed or learned from outside but constructed USING knowledge ideas and concepts we might encounter,

The sources show how this occurs, as a child logically processes all the data it has and makes logical but incorrect assumptions based on observation and experimentation

 It is true that a child must learn language to think because thought IS a product of language  However inner language begins before spoken language and young children use it to think and process what is happening to them Otherwise they could never learn to feed themselves to walk or command their body to do as they want it to. My wife is recovering from a stroke and is having to reteach her body to respond to her mental commands She basically has to go back to a childlike state to start from scratch to make a mental command translate into a physical motion. it took her 20 minutes of intense concentration causing sweating and trembling just to be able to put together the actions required to lift a spoon from a plate into her mouth  

So we know that young infants have conceptual understandings linked to both behaviours and to beliefs  

The sources explain some of the tests used to show  the connection.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
19 hours ago, Sherapy said:

It is an attachment system of behaviors that involve cognition, the role of emotions, the fear system, the exploratory system, the sociable system, the caregiving system, etc. etc. If you are interested, you could read the Handbook of Attachment (Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications). Then we could discuss this. You are just missing too much background for this to be fruitful. I am open to a discussion but the narrow view is on your end.  Why not use examples from the hundreds of kids you raised like Stubbs does or I do to help us make sense of what you are trying to say. 

We are discussing different things These are not my thoughts, although they  make sense to me  They come form many professionals and experts in the fields of child psychology, cognitive/language  development and  neuro linguistics.

Ive only raised a dozen kids and only two as young infants.  However, this would not help me understand the science behind an infant's mind and conceptual development.  I am basing this on both my professional learning and on professional reading about ealry childhood psychology cognitive development and linguistics

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Only the ones that are Not curious or afraid or both. I remember a great deal of my childhood and at no time did I attribute acts of nature as god or under such influence. The only concept of god was that experienced in church and school and he was in that building over there so don't pee on his lawn or swear when your there.

jmccr8

We are talking the very first years here, where this form of thinking evolves in all humans, according to the research  No you wont remember it.  Almost no human can remember their first few years of life except through overheard reminiscences of others.

 You wouldnt have thought in terms of god but your mind would have provided magical explanations and the action of magical agents for things you could not understand because you lacked the data. All human minds have evolved to think this way as a survival mechanism.  . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

We are talking the very first years here, where this form of thinking evolves in all humans, according to the research  No you wont remember it.  Almost no human can remember their first few years of life except through overheard reminiscences of others.

 You wouldnt have thought in terms of god but your mind would have provided magical explanations and the action of magical agents for things you could not understand because you lacked the data. All human minds have evolved to think this way as a survival mechanism.  . 

Walker,

 I am not going to go into a biography with you, I can't talk for anyone other than myself, I do know and understand the awe of my childhood and the lessons learned. Given that I have a certain nature unique to me (not talking woo here),the memories I have  give me reason to suspect and infer that I have been this way from the birth. Like I said if you are not a curious child or are scared of what you don't know or both, someone who is not like me will not look for answers. I question everything even myself. :D

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7
2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Oh yeah, Hammer is a charmer, a pure one, he actually does sees through the eyes of love.

       Whew and I'm so SO! glad to hear that, I don't know what got into me, obviously chatting away, oh the door was being knocked on too! I never-- well , seldom ever, use Champion, that's always been sort of reserved.

       Thanks Sherapy!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The sentence is as simple as i can make it and makes perfect sense. Sheri said that kids form attachments to loving parents, which then becomes attachment to other entities or concepts, in a transferal process. I pointed out that it is NOT loving parents who cause this to occur,   or kids who were not loved would not construct such attachments, and would not then, have such attachments to transfer to other entities.  

 The sentence is similar to this, "Exposure to   having a loving dog, doesn't make kids like cats"  

The proof for this is that many kids without dogs, or even with nasty ones, still love cats.  So there is some other mechanism than simply a transference, in a child's mind, of a parent's power and love to a god construct, at work in the formation of an infant's god constructs.

 

 ?????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

We are discussing different things These are not my thoughts, although they  make sense to me  They come form many professionals and experts in the fields of child psychology, cognitive/language  development and  neuro linguistics.

Ive only raised a dozen kids and only two as young infants.  However, this would not help me understand the science behind an infant's mind and conceptual development.  I am basing this on both my professional learning and on professional reading about ealry childhood psychology cognitive development and linguistics

 

 It takes raising one infant to know that he/she doesn't lay around teaching itself about god and ponder philosophical things. Infants are totally dependent, they cry, they smile, they coo, they sleep, nurse, they have no control over their bathroom habits. They are pre- lingual. 

You are trying to sell me a lemon MW, no disrespect to you, but you randomly Googled something, read it out of context, meaning no background,  Attachment Theory is in its third decade of growth, you do not know of it, you have no personal expernce, that's what you mean by it wouldn't help you to understand the infant cognitively. Yes, yes  it would. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually it does ANd that is the whole point  Children don't just learn from being taught, they learn via internal cognitive processing, ie their own thoughts form the basis of first understandings,

To explain A child that is a year old KNOWS that it can reach out and get its milk bottle and satisfy its thirst. Thus it knows its own connection between need and action. Form intent, act on intent, affect change.

It KNOWS that if it cries someone will feed it or change it.  Thus it has  also established an awareness of the  cause and effect connection between its own needs and the behaviours of others.

It  knows that animals move with purpose  it has already divided the world into free willed agents, capable of responding to and initiating change (like itself) and non agents which are non respsonsive /inert, like its milk bottle  This can be tested using simple video programmes and assessing a child's reactions.

 

BUT while it has learned this by observation and experimentation, it still lacks a wide knowledge base and many things are inexplicable to it. So it applies what it knows IE ALL changes are in response to the work of agencies and thus there must exist unseen unknown agencies, which make changes in its world.

This becomes a very early accepted mental construct (again before 12 months of age ) Once that belief/understanding, and logic ,is initiated in a child's mind it exists for life, although it can be modified by greater knowledge and experience.  Ie we learn that many of the things we thought were caused by "magic" actually have natural causes.  The remnants of this thinking always remain, however, so that, even in educated western adults, where we are faced with an unknown, we tend to attribute an intelligent self willed agency as a cause 

Piaget says that this form of magical thnking begins as earlry as 3 to 7 months of age

an age when infants first begin to associate a connection between mental intentions and physical effects in the world (Piaget, 1954; Subbotsky, 1993). During this stage, children develop two forms of pre-causal thinking, efficacy and phenomenalism, both of which serve as the foundation of the formation of magical beliefs (Piaget, 1954). Efficacy is the belief that internal feelings and wishes are the cause of events. Phenomenalism is the belief that close proximity in time or space between events suggests that one has caused the other.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ebs/4/1/18.pdf&productCode=pa

This post just demonstrates you don't know, and are now googling trying to catch up. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Toddlers, on the other hand, can be quite precocious, inquisitive and imaginative. I myself recall having invisible friends and lively interactions with stuffed animals, a regular Calvin and Hobbs childhood.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

a child must learn language to think because thought IS a product of language  However inner language begins before spoken language and young

I'm sorry it is because a child thinks that it has language to other children that think.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Toddlers, on the other hand, can be quite precocious, inquisitive and imaginative. I myself recall having invisible friends and lively interactions with stuffed animals, a regular Calvin and Hobbs childhood.

Yes, yes, yes, toddlers are wonderful! Questions, questions, and more questions. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Young infants are thinkers, long before they acquire even rudimentary command of speech or even walk. My great niece never crawled--she rolled. You could watch her eye where she wanted to roll, calculating the distance and effort required and she would roll precisely to whatever toy or person she wanted to be near to. Quite an accomplishment, such a young mind being able judge spatial coordinates in three dimensions. Rolling required a minimum of effort, unlike crawling which is much more a chore against gravity. Then one day she stood up and walked and never rolled again.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
17 hours ago, Sherapy said:

One more thing Stubbs: 

Gosh, I don't see religion as coming close as far as impacting the world in a viable way. I think parenthood is where you find the greatest growth, potential, humanitarianism,  altruism, compassion, conflict resolution etc etc. because you go through it all, you have an opportunity to critically think and act in a hands on way, it gives immediate feedback be awesome you are really in the moment, and now the educational system is catching up. IMO it is the way we raise kids that speaks about our civility and humanity and the direction we will go etc. etc. etc. when my kids parent they will come up with better ways and my ways will be outdated and my kids will say mom you are old fashioned, that was how it was not how it is now.

Oh, you said something, I think is more true to me. It is those who raise young ones, who have the more profound effect on them. I do feel, my parents made a real profound effect, ( pretty a very positive one ) and how it attributes to my strengths in this world. I like to think that my husband and I did that for our kids. 

Where religion is concerned, it's what is taught and how, that makes it's statements in children. I find this true to me, as I have observed various children of religious parents, and I still see the children behave either negative or positively in the same manner no matter the belief, even if it's the same. Whether children is being taught religion in the home, the most important thing that a child should get in the home, is selfless love. No matter what. Pretty much I feel is how I see it and agreeing with you one hundred percent Sheri. :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
17 hours ago, Sherapy said:

We all have regrets, yet the things that we regret were the challenges that encouraged them to grow! We aren't perfect, we are "good enough." Just like you look at your adult children as works of art in spite of your regrets, I think our kids do the same thing. I say you reached the top of the mountain Stubbs. 

Awwww, shucks Sheri. :blush:  I hope so. I feel my hubby more than me. I agree with how you see this. And it's not simplified, you're right, it was also the times in seeing how they grew in all areas as well. It still gets me, the consideration and thought both have put into their relationships with others. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
17 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

 

It's always something we can not change and go back and do better that haunt us. The years pile on myriad such regrets both large and small. What we have to recognize, realize and accept is--at each such a point in time we, usually, did the best we could. That's all you can ask or expect of yourself. Sometimes you fail, and failure is as much a part of the essential element of your humanity as is success. Sometimes the consequence of failure seems too much to bear and sometimes success overwhelms with optimism. All the solace we can hope for is that life bestows both in equal measure, that for every tear there is also a smile.

 

I think you put it in a very awesome way, Hammer. I fell that exactly. And reading this from someone else, you at this moment, if very reassuring. I know, parenthood is filled with regret and pride. I still feel, as a mom, I hoped I did it selflessly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
17 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Only the ones that are Not curious or afraid or both. I remember a great deal of my childhood and at no time did I attribute acts of nature as god or under such influence. The only concept of god was that experienced in church and school and he was in that building over there so don't pee on his lawn or swear when your there.

You know, I would think that our own childhoods and their experiences would be a perfect example to explain how it can't be so. *shrugs* 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

This discussion arose a few years back

Irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is happening now. 

Quote

One example i used then was the "god" issue of the new scientists where there were many articles by experts  who had conducted studies on the very young and also pre- schoolers across the globe, trying to understand why belief is the default position of human minds.  I don't think it is still available online for free but I  do have a hard copy somewhere.

 However, it is like anything these days, if you are interested and type in the right combination of words to google, you will find some articles which then provide leads to others via references etc  The sources i provided  recently quote and discuss some of this research. 

You do realize, I google, I bing, I research, I have access to books, and I find out things all by myself. I would have thought by now, you know I can find out for myself. Why don't you realize, it's me believing you, ( especially when you make statements about something that doesn't make sense ) you need to show proof of your statements. I'm not doing your work for you. ( especially when it doesn't show up proof of your statements, but pretty much my counter-statements. ) 

If you cannot provide the sources that you did, then don't expect me to believe you. 

 

Quote

The answer to your second question

Wait! What? You didn't answer my first question! 

Quote

is that his involves two different cognitive processes  (this is also discussed in the recent articles i used and sourced) One cognitive process occurs pre  verbal speech where the infant's mind is processing data and raising questions well before it is a year old . Here it ONLY has access to its own thoughts and ideas and thus evolves internal concepts of god -like entities which  the experts call agents. Once a child can speak, it learns the beliefs ideas and concepts of other human beings via speech, and then it further evolves its own internal concepts into something made familiar by parents or other children,

So it was found that, early on, children of atheists  evolve and hold  the same belief in gods(magical agents of change) that children of believers do,  but as they learn to speak, children of atheists will be more likely to adopt their parents beliefs, and in the same way a child will likely  believe in and follow the understanding of god (or gods)  which its parents hold. Eventually, when exposed to many different ideas, and when it 's mind can make comparative value judgements based on logic and individual need, a child (by then probably almost an adult ) will formulate its own personal world view.

Think of it like a young child learning to play with Plasticine/play dough.  It's first efforts come from  within it's own mind, based on observations of its world, And indeed, once it stops trying to eat it, it will just experiment with manipulating the material into basic shapes like a ball or a roll,   but then its parents help it shape figures. Eventually it will become expert enough to plan its own designs and construct them

Well, one, again, you are talking about what the brains do in children, but you still didn't link up in how they teach themselves something, that is not taught by parents to begin with. You have yet to establish that link. You're going, here's A, then here's B. but C doesn't even show how A and B gets there. 

I feel, you still haven't answered my questions. Just said the same old things before. 

Try again. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The sentence is as simple as i can make it and makes perfect sense. Sheri said that kids form attachments to loving parents, which then becomes attachment to other entities or concepts, in a transferal process. I pointed out that it is NOT loving parents who cause this to occur,   or kids who were not loved would not construct such attachments, and would not then, have such attachments to transfer to other entities.  

 The sentence is similar to this, "Exposure to   having a loving dog, doesn't make kids like cats"  

The proof for this is that many kids without dogs, or even with nasty ones, still love cats.  So there is some other mechanism than simply a transference, in a child's mind, of a parent's power and love to a god construct, at work in the formation of an infant's god constructs.

I think I'm gonna match Sheri's reaction to this. 

????

Plus, you're points don't match from the original points that has me asking you originally. :rolleyes: 

Read the sentence again, and see if you understand it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Read the sources i provided to see how young children can form quite  complex thoughts and concepts.It is well before they can physically speak. Thought MUST evolve inside the mind before a child can attempt to practice verbal speaking, and verbal speaking holds up expression of thought for a long time because it requires a lot of physiological development of tongue, palate, mouth, vocal cords etc to form words.  Well before a year old a child exposed to language can know the difference between a tree and a bird and probably even know the names for them even though it cant speak them yet For example give a kid a picture of a tree and a bird and call out the name of one of them. Even young children can identify by pointing that they know which is which,  but it might be another year before they can verbalise the words.  It is why a parent should speak and read to  child in proper words and sentences from birth. 

One, I have read the sources you provided. They don't show, what you are trying to prove. They just say about how a child can identify what is there to begin with. You are doing the same thing, talking about the child's ability, but no link to how it can identify something not provided to them to begin with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

23 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

By popular understanding, I would think, infants have no way of constructing anything. You say this, but don't show how or why or sources. There is no way I can see how this is true, when there is no way of logically seeing this would happen. 

That is a natural failing of perception based on a lack of specialised knowledge  I am not criticising you.

I'm not so sure. Looks to me, like you are using a fancy way of calling me ignorant. Oh well, *shrugs* which ever, one with the show. ;)  

Quote

Most non professional adults would think as you do.

Ok, so what do you use as an example of non professional adults? And besides, we're talking about the parents and the understanding of raising children from infancy. It's the answer of how your points is understood, and only using professionals and their sources in your answer, not how one is professional in their job. 

Quote

 i learned a lot in uni about early cognition and language development, but much more  has been learned since then and i had to keep up with it as a teacher . However i DID bold the significant bits in my posts from the sources quoted, and i did provide the sources  for others to read and evaluate.Are you letting what you want to believe control your opinion?  READ the articles and others, and see if it makes more sense  

Again, I told you I did, and they do not link one thing to another. You telling me what you did do, is not answering the questions, mostly so, when I don't think you actually answered it at all. 

Quote

The articles provided a coulpe of the  many ways in which non verbal young children can be assessed for perception conceptual development etc.  

But it doesn't answer how young children reach conclusions about something that is not taught to them to begin with. What you are saying and what the links you provide are saying are two different things. Yes, children have the abilities to understand what is going on around them, but not to come to conclusions about things that are not going on around them, hence a religious aspect that is not taught to them by religious parents. 

Quote

As one article points out, there is a danger in parents believing as you do. 

It does?! I didn't read that. In fact, I think that is a dangerous accusation you are saying about me, in which that is not pointed out in those articles. Let me get this straight, are you saying I was a danger to my kids? :hmm: 

Quote

 They will underestimate their childs' abilities and not provide the stimuli or resources which enable a child to learn language skills quickly an early. Children who are spoken to and read to, learn language skills earlier, and a child should be spoken to and read to AS IF it understands, because it quite likely does understand an ever increasing amount, long before it can speak. 

WOW! You do realize, and I have said before, we taught our kids as much as what is in the world, what we wish them to take in and such. Religion was not a priority, especially when it's not provable, as to provable situations. We did like to expose them to bits of stuff like different religions as well, but the thing is, that was our doing, they didn't do that on their own. Plus, you just contradicted yourself. First saying children teach themselves about things not taught, then accusing I didn't teach them it and so without it it was a danger to them. Am I getting that correctly? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually it does ANd that is the whole point  Children don't just learn from being taught, they learn via internal cognitive processing, ie their own thoughts form the basis of first understandings,

To explain A child that is a year old KNOWS that it can reach out and get its milk bottle and satisfy its thirst. Thus it knows its own connection between need and action. Form intent, act on intent, affect change.

It KNOWS that if it cries someone will feed it or change it.  Thus it has  also established an awareness of the  cause and effect connection between its own needs and the behaviours of others.

It  knows that animals move with purpose  it has already divided the world into free willed agents, capable of responding to and initiating change (like itself) and non agents which are non respsonsive /inert, like its milk bottle  This can be tested using simple video programmes and assessing a child's reactions.

Again, no it doesn't and again you're using what they have is what they perceive. Let's define The definition of cognitive processes is the performance of a cognitive activity or a processing and movement that affects the mental contents of a person such as the process of thinking or the cognitive operation of remembering something.

Remembering something. Meaning, something already there. Not something, that is not originally taught. 

Quote

BUT while it has learned this by observation and experimentation, it still lacks a wide knowledge base and many things are inexplicable to it. So it applies what it knows IE ALL changes are in response to the work of agencies and thus there must exist unseen unknown agencies, which make changes in its world.

This becomes a very early accepted mental construct (again before 12 months of age ) Once that belief/understanding, and logic ,is initiated in a child's mind it exists for life, although it can be modified by greater knowledge and experience.  Ie we learn that many of the things we thought were caused by "magic" actually have natural causes.  The remnants of this thinking always remain, however, so that, even in educated western adults, where we are faced with an unknown, we tend to attribute an intelligent self willed agency as a cause 

Piaget says that this form of magical thnking begins as earlry as 3 to 7 months of age

an age when infants first begin to associate a connection between mental intentions and physical effects in the world (Piaget, 1954; Subbotsky, 1993). During this stage, children develop two forms of pre-causal thinking, efficacy and phenomenalism, both of which serve as the foundation of the formation of magical beliefs (Piaget, 1954). Efficacy is the belief that internal feelings and wishes are the cause of events. Phenomenalism is the belief that close proximity in time or space between events suggests that one has caused the other.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ebs/4/1/18.pdf&productCode=pa

MAGICAL THINKING?!?!?!? You're going to make a claim of this to defend your point? Really?!?! Hey, my belief my have that in it, and I find it interesting how it is ;)   conjectured in the link you posted. But, and I mean a very huge BUT, that seems to me as conjecture, when in referenced as an objective claim, in which it is not. I can reflect it, but only for me. That doesn't mean I believe what you claim, only that it's of use for me and me only. I don't think it can be used as a objective answer to a child conjuring something that is not originally there. I don't believe this, in the objective point of view in all children. 

At least you're posting links, but sorry, I don't think they're helping you with your claims. :no: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I think you put it in a very awesome way, Hammer. I fell that exactly. And reading this from someone else, you at this moment, if very reassuring. I know, parenthood is filled with regret and pride. I still feel, as a mom, I hoped I did it selflessly. 

Oh, you mothers! So blind you can be to how truly awesome you are! You carry tomorrow in your bellies through nine months of tribulation and give birth to the future. You raise and nurture us to adulthood--and beyond! How often you sacrificed and did without for our sakes. How many times you lay sleepless until you heard the sound of the door and knew we were home safe. So many ways you show love without speaking, caring with actions--not just words. Be proud. You did good.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I had already by then. It formed the basis for a couple of my posts/responses  It does not explain the construction of god concepts in very young children, or a t least offers only a very partial explanation   The term pre-linguistic was used for infants who can not yet form spoken words, however we know tha t children are thinking with  quite a wide vocabulary and sophisticated concepts, before they are a year old and thus while still pre linguistic. We also know thus that these concepts form, or are constructed, internally and are not learned from outside sources A child will develop its own 'god concept equivalent" even if it never hears such ideas or terms spoken. 

If I'm reading your response correctly, meaning it backfired on you. I do believe, that was my point. You got the same google hits as I did, and in the end, it defended mine and other's points, not yours. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.