Toddlers. They’re next to each other. But are they playing together? Depends who you ask. Traditionally, “wisdom” had it that they’re not truly interacting, but engaging in parallel play. Preschool children are not aware of others’ thoughts and feelings. Hence, the side-by-side phenomenon, as opposed to truly engaged play.
Swiss psychologist, Jean Piaget, drew such conclusions after conducting extensive experiments with children in the 1950’s. He was followed by scientists who, by and large, refined and afforded empirical evidence to his theory that young children are essentially trapped in a world of egocentricity, incapable of considering other perspectives and viewpoints.
However, Henrike Moll, Assistant Professor of Developmental Psychology in the University of Southern California, avers that researchers have, in more recent years, employed more sophisticated methods of assessing children’s responses to various stimuli. “Instead of engaging toddlers in 
dialog,” Moll writes, “the newer methods capitalize on behaviors that have a firm place in infants’ natural behavior repertoire: looking… facial expressions, gestures… several puppet-shows [were acted out] in front of two-year-old children. In these puppet shows, Cookie Monster left his precious cookies on stage… What the protagonist did not know was that [someone took his cookies]… Children bit their lips, wrinkled their nose or wiggled in their chair when [Cookie Monster] came back, as if they anticipated the bewilderment and disappointment he was about to experience.”
Moll also referenced some Hungarian research that noted responses of six-month-old’s (!) that may indicate a capacity for empathy. The key was taking careful note of the precise length of time that the babies maintained eye-contact with a particular scene.
While not rejecting the essential model of the very gradual, other-awareness development that Piaget espoused, Moll believes that the more recent, fine-tuned studies do “reveal that there is much more going on in toddlers’ and even infants’ minds than was previously believed. With the explicit measures used by Piaget and successors, these deeper layers of kids’ understanding [could not] be accessed. The new investigative tools demonstrate that kids know more than they can say.”
Toddlers playing side-by-side – according to Moll’s theory – suggests there is indeed interaction going on between the tots, albeit in a different form than we grown-ups are used to.
That does make sense, doesn’t it? After all, if each tot has absolutely zero interest in the other who occupies his or her proximity, why would they bother to set themselves up like that? Clearly, there must be some level of awareness.
And, perhaps, even communication. Albeit in “baby language”.
In the research, the key to accessing this knowledge was by deciphering that baby language. To pick up on the very subtle nuances of baby behavior that can serve as windows into what the very young child may be thinking or feeling. Piaget seems to have been measuring children by an adult yardstick, which – according to Moll – necessarily falls short of the mark because it fails to “capitalize on behaviors that have a firm place in infants’ natural behavior repertoire.” Put otherwise: analyze and assess babies in their own language.
In the world of chinuch, this is quite a salient thought to bear in mind. For example, when it comes to what may very well be the prototype of chinuch in the Torah – relating the account of yetzias Mitzrayim to our progeny – even a child who is “tongue tied” and can’t even get a basic, simple question out of his mouth has to be properly addressed. Naturally, a parent or teacher is inclined to focus on the kids who grasp the material and can participate, at least on some basic level, in the discussion. It seems only intuitive to just send the clueless little ones off to play or sleep, right? Yet, the Torah tells us to not do that.
In a similar vein, halacha mandates that, as soon as a child begins to babble his first few words, he must be taught Torah tzivah lanu Moshe and Shema Yisrael. But what’s the point? He doesn’t understand a word, right? The Aruch Ha’Shulchan explains this halacha as follows: even though the child does not intellectually grasp what you are teaching him, it nevertheless embeds the fundamentals of emunah deep into his psyche.
Coming back to Moll’s work, in her article she notes that a big part of the paradigm shift of how scientists view babies’ minds has to do with modern
theorists’ belief that “knowledge cannot be pieced together [solely] from experience but must be innate.” In other words, human beings possess inherent faculties of knowledge, and experience is but a tool to actualize that potential. From a Torah standpoint, this goes without saying. We have a neshama – the source of thought and knowledge – from the time we’re born. As we mature, and through our life’s efforts, its light shines through and is manifest. Without a doubt, our core human faculties are not just experientially acquired, but are innately infused in our basic makeup.
So, what’s the takeaway? The takeaway message is, don’t write off a child’s abilities just because adults may not be immediately gratified by his response. Rather, as Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt”l pointed out, note the particular wording of the pasuk: “in order that you shall relate it into the ear of your child”. “Even if you have but spoken the words into his ear,” Rav Weinberg emphasized, “you have achieved a great accomplishment!”
If you liked this piece, check out my book, “uplifted. encouraged. inspired.”:
