Feel free to remove this, mods, if it’s too tangential to modern science, but I thought the community might find this early nature vs. nurture hypothesis amusing
Feel free to remove this, mods, if it’s too tangential to modern science, but I thought the community might find this early nature vs. nurture hypothesis amusing
According to Wikipedia:
“The experiments were recorded by the monk Salimbene di Adam in his Chronicles, who was generally extremely negative about Fredrick II (portraying his calamities as parallel to the Biblical plagues in The Twelve Calamities of Emperor Frederick II) and wrote that Frederick encouraged ‘foster-mothers and nurses to suckle and bathe and wash the children, but in no ways to prattle or speak with them; for he would have learnt whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which he took to have been the first), or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perchance the tongue of their parents of whom they had been born. But he laboured in vain, for the children could not live without clappings of the hands, and gestures, and gladness of countenance, and blandishments.’”
So, as you’d expect of someone raised without any formal language, other means of communication were necessary.
Am I the only one who interpretes this as “well, they died”?
It sounds to me it’s saying you had to do things like clap your hands to get their attention, gesture to communicate what you wanted them to do, and that you had to do so kindly and patiently or else they may not respond well. Alternatively, maybe it was the children who had to clap their hands and gesture, but then I’m not sure how they’d speak blandishments (kind, gentle encouragements, like “good job!”) to others.
Just looked it up. They all died quickly. It’s literally just “they couldn’t live without it.”
Iirc, they did, yes
I would be very impressed of any of them were still alive 800 years later
I’ve been looking for a foster-mother nurse to suckle me my whole life.
Bonk.