Talking Newborn: Bullshit or not?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Link

Baby starts talking minutes after being born - report
6 May, 01:46 PM

A newborn baby has started talking in the Russian city of Norilsk, amazing his parents and the obstetricians, who nevertheless claim pre-natal education can work miracles.

According to the Yoki.ru website, the baby boy pronounced his first word right after he was born, distinctly saying: “Papa!”

In just a few minutes, newborn Stepan said: “Mama!”

The next day, when the boy’s mother was telling him that his dad was about to visit them at the hospital, he asked: “Who? Papa?”

The boy’s mother, Lisa Bazheyeva, is just 17 years old.

The obstetrician who helped her in labor confirms the proud mother’s report.

“I heard with my own ears that the newborn baby spoke!” said Doctor Marina Panova, adding she had never seen anything of the kind in the 23 years that she worked at the maternity clinic.

“Newborns just can’t pronounce syllables as complicated as that,” she said.

“The fetus can learn while still in the mother’s womb. If a mother talks to the fetus, entertains it as if it has been born already, the baby is usually born gifted,” Panova said.

There's so much wrong with this story I don't know where to begin. Is something like this even POSSIBLE? I know crap about human development, but is this BS, or is it one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later?

[mr friendly guy]

IIRC From an evolution point of view the brains of human babies are less developed vs apes. Thus human babies have to be nurtured quite a bit in the early years while apes can start doing things like walking very quickly. The reason the brains in our young are less developed is that our brains will end up being bigger, but the head still has to be able to pass the mother's pelvis, thus the human baby must be born at an earlier stage of development. Thus I would have thought the answer to your question be no. But let them prove it if they think pre-natal education works.

[Rye]

Bullshit folk story from Russia. These things are ten a penny. A newborn can't even distinguish itself from its environment, yet it's meant to come with a language? Whatever.

[Surlethe]

Besides, all the infant has ever known is the inside of a uterus. How is she supposed to grasp the meaning of "papa" or "mama"? Is she gifted enough that she can understand parents as theoretical figures without ever having had directly experienced them?

[cosmicalstorm]

There is a never ending flow of bullshit stories like these constantly coming out of Russia, goverment has made contact with UFO's, baby born with wolf head, russian engineer builds fully functional perpetual motion device etc.

Dont pay any attention to them.

[Tolya]

Utter bullshit. The first stage of the 1st language acquisition comes at 12-24 months of age. It's the so-called "holophrastic stage".

It's not even about what the infant experiences in the uterus, it's about the process of brain development, which allows for language related processes well after birth.

"Who? Papa?"

The idiot journalist who made this up didn't even bother to look at how 1st language acquisition looks. If the kid could ask a question, then he would already be proficient in the "verb+noun" structure and be able to say simple things.

[fgalkin]

The website that "broke" the story is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Solauren]

The website that "broke" the story is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

Hey now.

The National Enquirer has had the odd factial story in it at least.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The website that "broke" the story is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

Hey now.

The National Enquirer has had the odd factial story in it at least.

Wasn't the Enquirer the paper that broke the story of John Edwards' baby?

[Akhlut]

Even if we are retardedly generous and say that the child is genius enough to recognize concepts such as 'mama' and 'papa,' you have to consider that after being born, the child has only breathed with its own lungs for a few minutes at best. The vocal chords are completely untested and the only noises the baby should be able to make are hoarse cries or contented gurglings. Much like how they can only kind of kick, punch, and writhe because they have very little muscle mass, they shouldn't be able to speak because their vocal chords, tongue, and lips aren't used to the motions necessary for speaking.

And, hell, my 10-month old son has been speaking for about 3-5 months now, and he only has a few words mastered ("dad," "mama," "cat," "rat," "baba") and he's been babbling and working out how to speak all this time; a newborn hasn't even attempted to speak before.

So, yes, complete bullshit.

[fgalkin]

The website that "broke" the story is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

Hey now.

The National Enquirer has had the odd factial story in it at least.

So does that site. Just not this one.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stuart]

Assuming there is some minute portion of truth in this article (ie the mother claims her baby did speak), I'd suggest the following factors at play.

a - human beings are hard-wired to see and hear patterns in things, in evolutionary terms its a vital survival skill. So, people "hear" words in what are actually random patterns of sounds, in this case gurgles and splutters. waaah-gurgle-waah gets heard as Papa.

b - one of the little ceremonies that happens when babies arrive in a family is that the women all gather around the newborn telling the father "oh look, he's got your nose, he's got your eyes, etc etc etc" This is a recognition of the fact that, while being the mother of the baby is an undeniable fact, being the father is, at best, an informed opinion. So, there is a concerted campaign to convince the alleged father that he is, in fact, the father. So, somebody coming out with "Oh listen, he's saying papa papa" fits right into that

c - Mothers always like to believe that the baby they have just inflicted on the world is a paragon of virtue and advancement so even the slightest hint of sentience gets trumpeted to the heavens as indisuptable proof of this belief.

[Tolya]

Assuming there is some minute portion of truth in this article (ie the mother claims her baby did speak), I'd suggest the following factors at play.

There isn't and it has been already explained in several ways why.

a - human beings are hard-wired to see and hear patterns in things, in evolutionary terms its a vital survival skill. So, people "hear" words in what are actually random patterns of sounds, in this case gurgles and splutters. waaah-gurgle-waah gets heard as Papa.

You would really be as dense as a brick to take "waah gurgle waah" as "Papa". Especially since 'p' is a bilabial stop consonant, meaning you must actually LEARN to pronounce it. Random crying and gurgling isn't even close in terms of complexity.

b - one of the little ceremonies that happens when babies arrive in a family is that the women all gather around the newborn telling the father "oh look, he's got your nose, he's got your eyes, etc etc etc" This is a recognition of the fact that, while being the mother of the baby is an undeniable fact, being the father is, at best, an informed opinion. So, there is a concerted campaign to convince the alleged father that he is, in fact, the father. So, somebody coming out with "Oh listen, he's saying papa papa" fits right into that

Im sorry, but I fail to see any relevance.

c - Mothers always like to believe that the baby they have just inflicted on the world is a paragon of virtue and advancement so even the slightest hint of sentience gets trumpeted to the heavens as indisuptable proof of this belief.

Have you read the bloody article? They had the obstetrician confirm it, it's not just the mother

[Stuart]

There isn't and it has been already explained in several ways why.

I don't think you quite read what I said. The minute element of truth in the story (assuming there is one) is most likely to be that the mother claimed her child was speaking. That's all.

You would really be as dense as a brick to take "waah gurgle waah" as "Papa". Especially since 'p' is a bilabial stop consonant, meaning you must actually LEARN to pronounce it. Random crying and gurgling isn't even close in terms of complexity.

Again, your missing the point completely. Humans have an inate habit of making patterns out of random noise and sight. There are many, many examples of this, in visual terms they include the sighting of faces or religious imagery in shadows, stains, tortillas to name just a few. In acoustic terms, there are numerous cases of random sounds being constructed into speech or other messages. I would refer you to "satanic messages" heard when music is played backwards or ghostly words heard from kitchen utensils etc (Look up The Skeptics Dictionary for further examples). Whether it is possible for the baby to actually make the sounds in question is quite irrelevent, the point is that people can and do take random noises and place remarkable interpretations on them. The insertion of complex and learned sounds takes place in the listener's head not in the noise-producer's mouth.

Im sorry, but I fail to see any relevance.

Then think about it a little more. We have an environment where everybody is admiring the little horror and pointing out what an incredible resemblance it bears to its father. Then the mother (or somebody) comes up with "Listen, he said Papa" and everybody joins in the chorus of praise. Technically, its a minor case of mass hysteria; one person says something, plants the idea in people's minds and off they go. Equivalent to our religious image in a wall-stain. Nobody notices it until one person points it out and then more and more people see it. Once they've seen it (the pattern gets established) its very hard not to see it. Yet all that is really there is a random pattern of light and dark. Same with sounds. One person hears it, points it out to others and eventually they hear it do. Once they've associated those words with the pattern, its very hard not to hear them (its a thing called a mondegreen, look it up in Snopes). Classic example is the theme song from the original CSI which starts with the words "Who Are You?" Some people were quite convinced the words were "New Orleans" until the original was publicized. When a baby is born, and revealed to the world, its a perfect environment for such mistakes.

Have you read the bloody article? They had the obstetrician confirm it, it's not just the mother

I have indeed. Nothing there to contradict any of my comments above. The poor sap in question could be doing anything from simply going with the flow, confiming the story to keep the mother happy or to earn himself a small honorarium from the newspaper. He might even genuinely believe that he did hear the baby speaking based on a mondegreen initiated by the mother claiming a random gurgle (from either end of the baby) was a specific phrase.

Now calm down.

[Darth Wong]

Doctors will often go along with patients' delusions if they think it will make the patient happy. Some doctors even openly recommend that you do this: read any article on "faith and medicine".

[Tolya]

I don't think you quite read what I said. The minute element of truth in the story (assuming there is one) is most likely to be that the mother claimed her child was speaking. That's all.

Oh, okay, I didn't look at it that way. Still, from my personal experience (and I worked at a tabloid newspaper myself for a few months), the story is most likely completely made up. There even may be Doctor Marina Panova, but most likely, if someone were to actually ask her about the truth, she would say that she never heard of such a thing or never spoke to any journalist. Had this happen to me on many occasions in different media when we were dissecting some particularly scandalous stories.

Again, your missing the point completely. Humans have an inate habit of making patterns out of random noise and sight.

I see what you are driving at, but it would take a really eager mind to perceive complex consonants and intonation (and after all, asking a question "Who? Papa?" in russian would take two turns of rising intonation). In the Led Zeppelin song (was that "The Stairway to Heaven"?) you could hear something that could be perceived as "satanic message", but all the voice elements were there. It's like Lego blocks, you can do many different things from them. Only to build some specific stuff you need to have the actual blocks to begin with. That is why I dismiss this story on the basis of it's being entirely fake, rather than that the mother perceived infant's noises as actual speech.

I have indeed. Nothing there to contradict any of my comments above. The poor sap in question could be doing anything from simply going with the flow, confiming the story to keep the mother happy or to earn himself a small honorarium from the newspaper. He might even genuinely believe that he did hear the baby speaking based on a mondegreen initiated by the mother claiming a random gurgle (from either end of the baby) was a specific phrase.

Newspapers aren't usually handing out money for that sort of thing. Of course, that's how it works in Poland, but I doubt it is that much different in Russia. After all, nobody will go to any lengths to prove that the obstetrician lied because it's not an important matter. And if anyone does, they newspaper in question usually says it's the journalist fault and then post a dementi on the 20th page, right next to the obituaries.

The doctor could have lied to keep the mother happy, yes.

And I am calm, I didn't mean to offend you in any way.

[Stuart]

Oh, okay, I didn't look at it that way. Still, from my personal experience (and I worked at a tabloid newspaper myself for a few months), the story is most likely completely made up. There even may be Doctor Marina Panova, but most likely, if someone were to actually ask her about the truth, she would say that she never heard of such a thing or never spoke to any journalist. Had this happen to me on many occasions in different media when we were dissecting some particularly scandalous stories.

My experience has been that there was usually a tiny grain of something at the bottom of the story (usually an unsupported claim or unsubstantiated report). I've been involved in investigating a couple of such stories, (one involving a chicken that was decorated for saving a senior army officer from a car bomb, another a submarine that was found at the bottom of a coal mine) that turned to be completely true (I actually identified the submarine in question, it was a real submarine, not a midget or a toy) while the others were based on something routine that had been blown out of any and all proportion.

I see what you are driving at, but it would take a really eager mind to perceive complex consonants and intonation (and after all, asking a question "Who? Papa?" in russian would take two turns of rising intonation). In the Led Zeppelin song (was that "The Stairway to Heaven"?) you could hear something that could be perceived as "satanic message", but all the voice elements were there. It's like Lego blocks, you can do many different things from them. Only to build some specific stuff you need to have the actual blocks to begin with. That is why I dismiss this story on the basis of it's being entirely fake, rather than that the mother perceived infant's noises as actual speech.

Yet, it happens all the time. One might think, for example, that it's hard to hear "words" in random electric hiss or the sound of a kettle working but it happens. Say again, the human mind is hard-wired to make patterns out of things and there was a time when we needed that ability to survive. (Ancient man walking in a grass-field. Is the clicking sound just the wind or a large-cat predator moving in for his lunch?") It's hard to imagine a random series of black and white blobs being mistaken for a face or seeing a ship on top of a mountain when all that is there are random terrain features but it happens all the time (look up Ark and Mount Arrarat). Or, if you want an outrageous example, look at the hysteria over the "face on Mars". There are whole industries based around this sort of stuff, all based on random sights or sounds being assembled into pictures or speech. If you do some research into this kind of thing, you'll find there have been old ladies who are quite convinced that their dog calls them by name - all anybody else hears is a perfectly normal canine bark.

There's an inescapable tendancy for people to hear and see what they want to hear and see and their brains convert random noise into whatever it is that they want. Using your lego analogy, it would be closer to say that people are surrounded by raw feedstock at all times and their brains convert it into lego bricks and then assemble the construct.

Newspapers aren't usually handing out money for that sort of thing. Of course, that's how it works in Poland, but I doubt it is that much different in Russia. After all, nobody will go to any lengths to prove that the obstetrician lied because it's not an important matter. And if anyone does, they newspaper in question usually says it's the journalist fault and then post a dementi on the 20th page, right next to the obituaries.

You've got to be kidding. Phone a story in to a newspaper or give them a picture and you'll get a payment if the picture or story is printed. For routine stuff, its usually USD25 - USD50 but if the story turns out to be a big one it can be a lot more than that. Some people actually make a living taking pictures of local events and selling them plus the associated stories to local newspapers ("accident at local black spot", "Bride has wardrobe malfunction at wedding") . What usually happens in this sort of case is that a local picks a story like this up as a filler and then one of the nationals (either semi-reputable or a supermarket tabloid) picks it up from there. Of course, every time the story is retold, it gets changed. That's what makes it fun trying to find out what (if anything) lies at the bottom of the story.

I don't exclude or deny the possibility that the story was completely invented, I'm simply suggesting that beneath the mountains of journalistic invention lies a tiny seed of a tangible event and its fun to try and speculate on what that tangible event might have been.

[JointStrikeFighter]

OK Stuart you can't mention a fucking submarine in a coal mine and not tell us anything more. WE DEMAND AN EXPLANATION. I assume it was a commercial research submersible?

[Stuart]

OK Stuart you can't mention a fucking submarine in a coal mine and not tell us anything more. WE DEMAND AN EXPLANATION. I assume it was a commercial research submersible?

Nope, it was a genuine, honest-to-goodness U-boat. At the bottom of a coal mine.

The story took a bit of piecing together but it went like this.

Back in 1916 a German U-boat (UB-46) was on a minelaying mission off the Turkish coast. She dropped her mines OK, which was doing rather well since a lot of UB boats blew themselves up on their own mines. Then, she set sail for home. Unfortunately she made a navigational error and ran hard aground in a small, shallow bay. There was no possibility of saving her so her crew opened the seacocks and scuttled her.

During the 1920s, the Black Sea changeda bit. The sea level went down and the Turks did a lot of land reclamation work. As a result, the coastline moved a long way (several miles) away from its 1916 position and what had once been a small bay was well inland. However, as the years passed, the new coastline was accepted and the old one forgotten.

Jump forward to the 1990s. In 1993, the Turks were exploiting national resources and, in particular, energy resources. There happened to be a rich, very shallow coal seam just inland from the Turkish coast and it was easily exploitable. All that was needed to get to the coal was to remove the topsoil and start an open-cast pit. So, they did.

You can guess the rest. They stripped away the topsoil (both the stuff that had been laid in the 1920s and what was the original seabed) and exposed the coal. Oh goody, high grade, easily accessible coal. Now, if they could just get this damned submarine out of the way.... long pause..... did somebody say submarine? At the bottom of a coal mine? Uh-oh.

Anyway, the discovery was reported in the Turkish newspapers and got picked up by the Weekly World News. Of course, nobody believed it but somebody I know called in a favor and asked me to check into it. It didn't take very long to identify her as a UB boat and it was quick work to identify which one. A Turkish businessman bought her, dug her out and I believe she is on display at the Turkish Naval Museum in Istanbul.

There's a couple of minor mysteries left. One is that most accounts suggest that she was sunk by a mine but the wreckage had no trace of mine damage. The other is that all her crew was lost but her seacocks were opened and there were no human remains on board. My ***Guess*** is that the "hit a mine" story was a guess based on the habit of UB boats blowing themselves up. As for the crew, ***my guess*** is that there are some German-speaking Turkish families in the region who don't like to talk too much about what Grandpa did in the war.

[fgalkin]

Stuart, allow me to say that you had an truly awesome job. Thanks for sharing that story with us, it truly made my day.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin