Talk:Dunstan Baby Language

See also

I undid previous edit which added "Pseudoscience" and "Quackery" to the "See Also" list as these are clearly editorial comments. I would go so far as removing "Confirmation Bias" from the same list, but would be curious to get feedback. While the research and testing of the Dunstan Baby Language may well be an example of "confirmation bias", the relevance of the term isn't really spelled out in the article. I'm not clear on Wikipedia's standards on "See Also" lists, but it seems to me that the logic of the lists should follow clearly from the information given in the article. "See Also" lists should not be a means of adding unsupported editorial commentary. There is no discussion of confirmation bias in the article, no direct accusation that this is is relevant to Dunstan, and it is not clearly germane to the subject matter (in the way "baby talk" is). Thus it seems unwarranted to use it in this context. Same would be true if someone added "See also: Language Acquisition", "See also: Linguistics", or "See also: Noam Chomsky" for example, all of which would imply that there was greater scientific merit for Dunstan Baby Language than has thus far been established. A better "See Also" might be something like "See Also: Scientific Method" or "See Also: Scientific Proof" which might help people understand the rules that science abides by without weighing judgment on Dunstan. Jumunius (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the idea to remove confirmation bias from the links, certainly without any explanation of it. 71.232.107.213 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please verify and correct the link for your third reference (Oprah.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.57.40.102 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have removed the references to Brown University, since the claims on Dunstan's web page concerning the involvement of this institution are doubtful. Here's why:

• There is no "Language Research Center" at Brown University. There is a "Metcalf Language Research Lab", but the name Priscilla Dunstan does not occur anywhere on the institutional web pages, nor anywhere else on Brown's website. The research projects described on the language lab's web page do not make any reference to Dunstan, and there is not a single publication on this topic.
• The claims seem to be deliberately worded ambiguously: The first mention is on the "Research" page [[1]], where it is claimed that what is reported is "Research conducted by Leading Edge research, Sydney Australia with the involvement of Brown University, Rhode Island." What does "with the involvement" mean? Additionally, at the top of the page it says "Independent research conducted in Sydney and Chicago with over 400 mothers in 2006 found some remarkable results" -- but Brown University is not in Chicago. The second mention is on tje "Meet Priscilla" page [[2]], where there is mention of "years of independent studies - including those guided by Brown University’s leading infant research centre" -- this could actually be read to mean "unrelated research". In my opinion, these ambiguous wordings are deliberate. They are meant to give the impression that Brown University is involved without actually saying so.

If anyone can turn up hard evidence of a link between Dunstan and Brown University, then this can be mentioned in the article, but until then we should be careful not to spread unfounded PR claims. MadProfessor42 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible someone will find hard evidence of a link between Dunstan and Brown, but I kind of doubt it given this find: "Journalist Jane Cadzow did an excellent job of unearthing disparities in their claim of 'independent studies'. [. . . . ] Brown University disputes this stating in the article 'Brown University faculty did not conduct this, or any, research on the Dunstan Baby Language system'." [3] KingTor (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Priscilla Dunstan

I feel that the photo of Ms. Dunstan should be moved from the left side of the page to the right, because it's interfering with the alignment of the 'See Also' section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.51.173.99 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

• I went ahead and moved it to the right myself.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

scientific

The article currently says "Dunstan's claims, in their current form, do not constitute a scientific theory, and ..."

Is that so? The basic idea -- that different kinds of discomfort cause babies to make different sounds, and that people can learn those sounds and use them to figure out which kind of discomfort the baby is in -- seems to me that could be tested in a double-blind test, so it is at least "falsifiable" (falsifiability) and therefore a "scientific theory".

--nope, that's what we call an hypothesis. 69.7.77.20 (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not anyone actually has tested it, and whether or not the test falsified the idea (or, in fact, whether the idea is true or false), is irrelevant to deciding whether or not something is a scientific theory. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You suggest a double-blind test would be possible, but a double-blind test requires control and experiment groups. I highly doubt that would be possible in the case of babies, since there is no (ethical) way of assigning babies to groups that would experience pain of a certain type. Sure, we could starve one group and see if those babies say "Neh" more often than the control group, but I doubt you'd find any parents willing to subject their infant to that. So maybe it's technically falsifiable, but I don't think she ever expects her "theory" to be subjected to that kind of rigor.

I've actually seen the DVD. She has riddled her system with so many caveats and exceptions that basically it boils down to this: "If your baby's making noise, try to comfort it with food, burping, changing, and/or sleeping." It's not falsifiable because it's essentially a tautology. She's tailored it to be always true. --W0lfie (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

not really, because babies do make different sounds at different occasions. my baby for example says "ow" when he's about to throw up. i was googling for more "words" when i came upon this page. the words from dunstan do not match my baby's language though. --[Anonyma.DE] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.82.26 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a double-blind test requires control and experiment groups. And I agree that confirmation bias makes this system difficult to test.

I agree that experimenting on babies is probably unethical, but perhaps there is another way. Off the top of my head (original research warning), here's one possible test (perhaps there is a better one): We videotape babies. I think we could find parents willing to subject their infant to videotaping. No one deliberately subjects the infant to pain, but (as always happens with every baby) eventually the baby starts crying, and the parents (eventually) figure out why, fix the problem, and the baby stops crying. The parent writes down (or tells the camera) what the problem was.

We end up with pile of video tapes, and reduce them to one snippet for each time each baby cries -- a little snippet that lasts a few minutes (?) and ends with the child starting to wail, and piece the snippets together (in some order? randomly? how to avoid unconscious bias?) into a movie. Much later, we get 2 groups of adults -- a control group and an experiment group. Each adult in the experiment watches the movie and for each snippet guesses (a) which sound the baby is making, and (b) what the problem is.

If the theory is correct (that the language is "universal", applying to every baby), then the experimental group of adults who have been given "language training" will correctly guess the problem significantly more often than the control group. Also, if the theory is correct, for any particular snippet, most adults will agree on "which sound is this baby making" during that snippet. Also, if this theory is correct, there will be a strong correlation between the guessed "what sound the baby is making" and the actual problem. See any fatal flaws that would make this "scientific" experimental protocol biased or unethical? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's no worse than several other scientific theories that are tested under a presumption of correctness. But I would argue that if it's truly a universal language, it wouldn't need teaching. Look at Eckman's research into universal expression of emotions. That's universal. People just know what a smile means. Well, this is getting off-topic. I apologize.

Back to your suggestion, I suppose it would be a valid experiment to verify whether or not the language training helps parents solve their baby's woes. Which makes for a more externally valid experiment at the expense of its internal validity. Such trade offs are typical in experiments where ethical concerns prohibit a completely valid study. And frankly, I would settle for even an externally valid experiment such as the one you suggest. So I guess if the "theory" in question is the teachability (is that a word?) of the language and its real-world usefulness (rather than the definitions of the "words" in baby talk), then I would agree with you. It should count as a scientific theory. --W0lfie (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost forgot. The sentence as worded says "Dunstan's claims" aren't a theory. So I'd still agree with that statement, since her claims include a whole slew of things that aren't wholly falsifiable, due to their tautological construction. God, I sound pedantic. Sorry. --W0lfie (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've tagged the section as original research. These claims need citations from reliable sources. --CliffC (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sound representations protected by law?

Does anyone have the materials to hand to confirm something for me? We bought this product after learning of it following my own independent observations, but we sold it on in fairly short order when we read that the five sounds (in those spellings) are trademarked, or copyrighted. I don't remember the precise details (something to do with lack of sleep!) so I'd appreciate if someone can find the info. I found that part of it highly objectionable. (For those interested, my own single-subject independent observations identified four instinctive vocalizations, rather than Dunstan's five: /ɴɛː/ for hunger, /oː/ for tiredness, /ɦɛː/ for general discomfort, and /ʔɛ/ for internal discomfort. Later on, Mom was /ɴɛɴɛː/, and I was /ʔɛʔɛ/!)--Rfsmit (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your phonetic precision! - something the article lacks. Just what sound is "eair" supposed to represent, or "ow"? Without spending time or money on Dunstan's commercial products, a reader of this article should be able to clearly reprodue - or better, hear - the actual sounds under discussion. Editors, please supply suitable sound files or phonetic representations if you can. yoyo (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yoyo, I removed your clarify-tags from the article. Without reading the talk page, they are incomprehensible, because the text doesn't need clarification. Furthermore, your request for sound files is here on the talk page. With friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Several problems with this article

I thought it prudent to mark this article checked for neutrality. I rephrased the introductionary part and removed the cricicism section.

The page hasn't been edited for some time, and some of these edits have obviously been made under the assumption that Dunstan's research is fraudulent and/or pseudo-scientific (rather than simply unverified or awaiting review). There were no sources listed where her observations were considered fraudulant, or, any indication, that her hypothesis' could not undergo independent peer review or scientific study.

A criticism section was added with defunct links, without any substantive criticism from reliable source, which furthers points to the fact, that the page has been edited with a POV, in order to incite false controversy. Using words such as "claims", repeatedly, rather than hypothesis', is also biased to a point of view, that these observations on infantile vocal expressions have not been (or can not be) put to independent peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny.

Dunstan's claims, toghether with her cited research proposals, are put forth as a hypothesis, in the context of behavioral intervention, and must therefore be considered as awaiting further clinical trial.

It should be enough to state: 1) That Dunstan's Baby language is a for-profit company, 2) that it's not an independent research institution, but citing material currently being proposed for independent study, by peer-reviewed authors, or undergoing such trial awaiting peer-reviewed publication.

Undue criticism without sources, insunating the view that Dunstan's observations are fraudulant and/or pseudo-scientific, is POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.253.25 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 July 2014‎

I've reverted it as it looks like WP:POV and WP:FRINGE are being set aside based upon bad-faith assumptions of past editing.

Yes, we should include material about the for-profit company.

I don't understand the concerns about the criticism section. The section has one source that seems reliable. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the opposition to the use of the word "claim" in place of the word "hypothesis." I even find this statement by unsigned (5 July 2014‎) to be more than a little inflated: "Dunstan's claims, toghether with her cited research proposals, are put forth as a hypothesis, in the context of behavioral intervention, and must therefore be considered as awaiting further clinical trial." Why use "further" (in "further clini[c]al trial") when there hasn't yet been any clinical trials? The scientific method wasn't applied rigorously in the development of Dunstan Baby Language, and the scientific method (with clinical trials, not simply self-reporting and surveys) hasn't been applied rigorously to test the accuracy of the claims of Dunstan Baby Language. I haven't made any changes to the entry but fully support the article's healthy skepticism. Jk180 (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"Dunstan Baby Language is a claim about infantile vocal reflexes as signals, in humans."

Terrible opening sentence. First of all, a 'language' cannot be a 'claim'.... How about something roughly like "Dunstan Baby Language is a claimed [or 'hypothesized'] set of infantile vocal reflexes used as signals in humans younger than three months."? Also, the tone of this article seems to me to be much more harshly critical than it needs to be. Sure, the system may be an over-hyped commercial product, but that does not mean there's nothing to it. I really wonder if an amateur researcher publishing something similar in young dolphins or crows or kittens would attract the same degree of hostility. Let's try and keep the tone more neutral. Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)