CRITICAL PERIODS AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS

Abstract

There is no evidence at present to support the assertion that biologically fixed critical periods control the sequence of cognitive development, no evidence that scientifically designed toys are in any way superior to the usual household items available to most infants, no evidence that the systematic application of such toys accelerates intellectual development, and no persuasive evidence that acceleration of specific skills during the sensory motor phase of development, even if possible, has any lasting effects on intellectual competence. Until more persuasive evidence is presented, it seems unethical for toy companies to invoke the concept of critical periods to sell their products; for academic consultants in the behavioral sciences to lend their authority to the promotion of such toys; and for private industry and the federal government to join forces in creating an infant development market which will assure industry a large profit and which may become the means for "shaping" the development of infants in keeping with the misguided national interest, if such programs should ever become effective. While there is also no established experimental evidence which demonstrates that early enrichment will harm the infant, clinical experience suggests that, when such programs are used by parents for focused mental training, the effort can interfere with the mutually nuturing relation of mother and infant. The spontaneous social interchange of parent and child is at least as important for the child long-term intellectual development as early academic achievement. Therefore, there is little reason for pediatricians to encourage, and ample reason for them to discourage, the use of specialized toys when these are used for maximizing the rate of mental development in the first 2 years. The principles of child-rearing advocated by Dr. Benjamin Spock are not as popular today as they were a decade ago. In an age when technological gadgetry and the authority of "scientism" are progressively displacing reason and moral responsibility, it is useful to remember that Dr. Spock stressed an approach to child rearing which would permit parents and children a broad latitude of alternatives in finding their optimal fit. He also cautioned that these alternatives should not be rigorously codified by experts. Dr. Spock advice pertained to emotional development and social training. With appropriate transformations it is just as relevant for the intellectual development of infants. The attitudes which encourage parents to accelerate the cognitive development of non-deprived infants seem to us to be diametrically opposed to such a view of child rearing.