Why do babies need social interaction?

silenzer

An experiment performed by a German king in the 13th century made me think. He put several babies into a cell with no social interaction but to feed them. They all died with no apparent reason.

My question is, why was that? How can the body simply shut down if no social interaction is attained?

DaveC426913

Well, for starters, in the 13th century, "no apparent reason" covers virtually everything. There's no way of knowing the actual cause of death. Perhaps it was electrolyte imbalance. Who knows?

We have no idea of the parameters of the experiment. There's no way we can know how well they were cared for. Was hygiene maintained? Did the babies die from weight loss/malnourishment? Unless their weight was measured, how would they know? (This is the most likely cause of death, absent any data. Understimulated babies will lose interest in feeding, or fail to learn how to feed themselves adequately. Any study investigating some sort of 'failure to thrive' cause would have to first rule out simple undernourishment. )

There's going to be a slew of responses to this thread about 'under stimulation' and other such ideas, but what we need first are facts. Is there ny modern scientific data on this? If so, what were the parameters of the study and what was the outcome? Without them, forthcoming ideas are simply speculation.

Evo

You need to post your sources.

I happen to be familiar with this and other similar experiments, they were to determine what language was "natural".

The one you're referring to is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederi..._Roman_Emperor

More experiemnts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languag...on_experiments

arildno

OOPS, EDIT, Evo beat me to it!

This is a well-known story told about Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1194-1250).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederi..._Roman_Emperor
He was called Stupor Mundi ("Wonder of the World"), and refused to accept things without reason. He employed Jews to translate scientific works from Greek and Arabic. He wrote an excellent book on falconry, and he forbade trials by ordeal. A very modern man, in many respects.
Perhaps one of his lasting achievements as a lawmaker is the ban on doctors being their own pharmacists.

He also had pretty rabid enemies, like the monk Salimbene.

He is the source for the story about the babies, here it is, from Medieval Sourcebook:

"[Salimbene] goes on to enumerate several specimens of the Emperor's "curiosities" or "excesses," though for sheer weariness he will not tell them all. Frederick cut off a notary's thumb who had spelt his name Fredericus instead of Fridericus. Like Psammetichus in Herodotus, he made linguistic experiments on the vile bodies of hapless infants, "bidding foster-mothers and nurses to suckle and bathe and wash the chidren, but in no wise to prattle or speak with them; for he would have learnt whether they would speak the Hebrew language (which had 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. "
"

Salimbene ALSO tells us about Fredrick II:

" "he enclosed a living man in a cask that he might die there, wishing thereby to show that the soul perished utterly, as if he might say the word of Isaiah 'Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.' For he was an Epicurean; wherefore, partly of himself and partly through his wise men, he sought out all that he could find in Holy Scripture which might make for the proof that there was no other life after death, as for instance 'Thou shalt destroy them, and not build them up': and again 'Their sepulchres shall be their houses for ever.'

Sixthly, he fed two men most excellently at dinner, one of whom he sent forthwith to sleep, and the other to hunt; and that same evening he caused them to be disembowelled in his presence, wishing to know which had digested the better: and it was judged by the physicians in favour of him who had slept. '
"


Personally, I think most of these stories seem to be attempts at character assasssination, rather than having anything historically substantial to tell us about Frederick II
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/salimbene1.html

DanP

They wont die :P However, psychologically stable and healthy development of a child, and most importantly language, depends of social interaction.

However, I don't know details about how he allegedly isolated the babies. Note that if you close N babies together in cell, that is not social isolation. It would be very possible that within that single generation a new language would be developed by those children sequestrated there together.

cesiumfrog

The holy grail for proof that language is innate rather than a cultural development. Now, how do we get ethics clearance?

Lievo

Observe rather than experiment.

DanP

IMO all ppl who look at the mind as a blank slate, on which culture writes "whatever", are making a big mistake.

About ethics clearance, what do you mean with that ?

Kusma

Actually, there is evidence that complete lack of social interaction can cause huge physical developmental deficiencies. I'm thinking of case study in Bruce Perry's book, The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog, chapter 4, specifically. The girl had all of her immediate biological needs met - food, water, shelter - but was not receiving much social interaction or physical contact. As a result, she weighed in at 26 pounds at 4 years old. I'm not sure of the exact connection, but it has to do with the body not releasing growth hormones. It's pretty common in cases of abuse or neglect.

DanP

You cant infer that. The bottom line is, you have no idea how the nutritional requirements of the victims of such an abuse are met during detention. And no, you cant trust a pop sci book on this. The book may claim her nutritional needs where met. But we don't know. Does the book provides us with 4 years of nutritional intake logs ? That's what you need to see first and foremost before any conclusion whatsoever can be drawn

thorium1010

I think its kind of pointless to study whether babies need social interaction.Babies learn a lot including walking, talking, emotions from their peers, which is social interaction. children are limited in their development - cognitive , intelligence, verbal etc if they do not go through the normal development.

But a better way to study these are in children who were born deaf or blind, which would severely limit their interaction including learning by imitation.

WhoWee

Interesting, the only feedback they would receive would be from each other.

We can assume they would learn basic interaction and behavior - a poke or a pinch deserves a reciprocal kick, etc. But how would they communicate need? It would require them to create a sign language or a pattern of utterances - wouldn't it?

There would be a need for a group dynamic.

Lievo

Here

WhoWee

That was FASCINATING - great post!