patiodog wrote:Is there a general correlation between the shake-for-yes cultures and the presence or lack of spoon feeding?
Not that I'm aware of. Those who contend that the shaking and nodding are not universal have made very weak cases thus far to support their claim.
The strongest evidence submitted thus far was soundly debunked by Gautam.
I'm not saying it's not universal. Could be. But the specific things you've said don't correllate to my experience of breastfeeding or what I have observed of others's experiences.
sozobe wrote:As I said, I haven't seen a lot of boob rejection. So I'm not on absolutely firm ground there. But rooting is more side-to-side than up-and-down. The classic rooting reflex is to stroke the baby's cheek, and the baby turns towards you with mouth open ready to nurse.
Rooting is indeed as you describe it. But often babies are held in a position in which they are too low to suckle. And often they will raise their heads to bring themselves closer to their goal.
I just thought of another possible theory. But do not think I can explain it well enough right now.
Craven, why do you feel Gautam debunked your india theory, but that Soz didn't debunk your breastfeeding theory?
Because I have seen many instances that contradict what sozobe has said and have not seen anything to contradict what Gautam said.
India was not my theory, it was deb's and she had to resort to bribes once Gautam had his say.
Wait what instances contradict what I'm saying about rooting? That the times you managed to drag your eyes down from the ceiling you happened to see mothers who didn't position their babies right and they had to do a little up-and-down in addition to the regular, baseline, what-happens-if-they're-being-held-right rooting? At best, this seems to indicate that babies sometimes go side-to-side, sometimes go up-and-down, which does not translate to "yes" universally being an up-and-down movement.
yes soz! craven, your evidence is far from conclusive.
I've already said that I am not speaking about rooting but rather the action beforehand wherin the baby tries to near the breast. Rooting takes place once the breast is already available and the desire does not have to be communicated.
Rooting = looking
I never once supported my assertion that yes= up and down is universal with the breastfeeding theory. I posited the breastfeeding theory as a possible cause. Whether or not it is relevant is not related to my assertion that yes and no head gestures are not cultural.
I said that yes = up and down is universal because I have yet to see data otherwise and have seen much data that supports that claim.
If you want to contest the universal versus cultural factor I am all ears. That is a separate but very interesting topic that I asked about in another thread.
littlek wrote:yes soz! craven, your evidence is far from conclusive.
If it were conslusive I would not be discussing it.
Just move'n my head around
Ok, both the little girls I care for latched onto the breast by swinging their little heads back and forth. When the milk slowed down, the pulled the nipple out from the mothers body to re-establish flow. I don't remember any real up and down motion at all. The girls continue the side to side motion while eating off the fork. Especially the one who was breastfeed to an older age.
This makes sense, and is related (I have been throughout rejecting the "yes" part, while being dubious about the "no" part as it relates to breastfeeding:):
Quote:Curiously, the yes nod and the no shake are nearly universal gestures. Erwin Straus' theory is that the yes nod is an abbreviated version of the bow of submission, i.e. "you are correct and I bow to your will." The no shake, on the other hand, involves no lowering of the body or the head. You remain erect, as if standing your ground, and only turn your head sideways, like a baby rejecting food.
Note "rejecting food", as per patiodog, rather than "rejecting the breast" or "milk".
sozobe,
I hate when Cecil avoids an unanswerable question with research.
He has illustrated that nodding and shaking are not 100% universal (yes, an oxymoron) but that they are so common that it is thought to be innate.
It's interesting to learn of a source for this theory, Darwin. I did not know this was one of his mind trips as well.
And the Brazil thing si interesting because it was considering that very difference in gestures that lauched my mind trip.
As to the bowing theory is is very related to the one I said I thought of a few posts back. I think it can easily be part of the cause.
Ok, lemme expound on my new one:
Hold a piece of meat up to a dog.
The dog will look up at you. If the dog thinks the meat has been tossed he will look at the ground below.
If you confront a dog with a pill and try to put it in his mouth he will turn his head.
Children often use their heads to gesture at themselves. "Who wants ice cream?"
Me me me me!
hands are often raised to draw attention, heads sometimes are used to indicate oneself.
Side note:
If anyone think that I'm trying to nail down this gesture to one cause please note that I would be ridiculous to do so.
I think it's almost innate but do not think that it can possibly be due to only one cause.
Don't get too carried away with your Darwin comparisons. Darwin also found infanticide fairly inconceivable, and yet it is not uncommon, either via direct action or neglect, throughout the mammalian and avian worlds.
Will still go with the word of the currently or recently breastfeeding mother on the behavior of babies at or near the teat.
Oh, I don't like Darwin much. I'll rarely use any of his work to support my arguments.
As to the rest it's the ole proximity argument. It is only valid once susbtantiated by factors other than proximity.
e.g.
"you weren't there" is not valid unless being there gave one access to information that not being there precludes.
Not having a teat does not preclude the collating of data pertaining to breastfeeding.
If that argument had logical merit male gynecologists would be less prefferable than female ones. Most young women prefer male gynecologists.
Teat-less wonders can of course collect data, but it helps credibility if they don't claim they can't look when faced with said data.
I just don't think your breastfeeding-based nod-means-yes theory makes any sense, based on my own data and even the data that you say you have gathered. I understand that there are two separate issues, 1) is nod-means-yes/ shake means no almost 100% universal? and if yes, 2) does breastfeeding have to do with the development of the almost 100% universal usage nod-means-yes/ shake-means-no? My answer to 1) is probably, my answer to 2) is probably not, and specifically I find your argument thereof to be unconvincing.
