Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Siberian Boy Raised By Dogs Until Age 7
- Thread starter Abstract
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've read somewhere (I can't remember where, of course), that pretty much all of these "feral children" turn out to be not so feral. They are never raised from the age of babies; in most cases they've only been living with the animals for a year or two.
wordmunger said:
This might be a special case, though. Raised from the age of 3 months? Damn, its amazing that he managed to survive his first year. And this is Siberia - what happened to him in the winter?!?!?!
D
If true, it's pretty amazing.
But as a father of 2 kids, one of whom is 9 months old, I can't imaging how dogs could possibly raise a kid from three months old. Heck, I can barely raise a three month old!
At three months, unless it's some kind of super-kid, they can barely sit on their own, let alone move around, etc. Just enough motion control to stick his fingers in the dog's eyes.
By one, he's starting to walk around. Fantastic. Now get the heck out of the flea powder... that's right... no, wait, not there by the fire... whew! Wait, now where'd he go?
Then you've got the terrible twos - I don't see dogs listening to all the back-talk. At this point, the dog is out looking for the dead-beat dad to go kick his *** for leaving this kid with him.
Then there's potty training. "No, I said on the tree."
By three he's getting independent. Wants to stay up late. Won't take a bath. Whines when he doesn't get the extra piece of rabbit foot for a snack. Can't eat like the rest of you - always wanting that stupid spoon.
At four, watch out. Now he's looking up to his older dog "cousins" and trying to be like them. And never the good ones. Just the ones that are always out back drinking from the outhouse toilet.
By five, things are getting fun. He can bite the head off of his own snake, no more relying on doggie dad to hunt down groundhogs. Of course, now he has an Oedipus complex and only hangs out with his "mother."
Six years old, he's finally turning the corner. Wants to hang out with the guys on hunts. Figures out that rocks and sticks can be used for something other than chew toys.
At seven, just when things are going well, he goes and runs off with a stranger. And after all they've done for him.
And not even a goodbye sniff...
But as a father of 2 kids, one of whom is 9 months old, I can't imaging how dogs could possibly raise a kid from three months old. Heck, I can barely raise a three month old!
At three months, unless it's some kind of super-kid, they can barely sit on their own, let alone move around, etc. Just enough motion control to stick his fingers in the dog's eyes.
By one, he's starting to walk around. Fantastic. Now get the heck out of the flea powder... that's right... no, wait, not there by the fire... whew! Wait, now where'd he go?
Then you've got the terrible twos - I don't see dogs listening to all the back-talk. At this point, the dog is out looking for the dead-beat dad to go kick his *** for leaving this kid with him.
Then there's potty training. "No, I said on the tree."
By three he's getting independent. Wants to stay up late. Won't take a bath. Whines when he doesn't get the extra piece of rabbit foot for a snack. Can't eat like the rest of you - always wanting that stupid spoon.
At four, watch out. Now he's looking up to his older dog "cousins" and trying to be like them. And never the good ones. Just the ones that are always out back drinking from the outhouse toilet.
By five, things are getting fun. He can bite the head off of his own snake, no more relying on doggie dad to hunt down groundhogs. Of course, now he has an Oedipus complex and only hangs out with his "mother."
Six years old, he's finally turning the corner. Wants to hang out with the guys on hunts. Figures out that rocks and sticks can be used for something other than chew toys.
At seven, just when things are going well, he goes and runs off with a stranger. And after all they've done for him.
And not even a goodbye sniff...
Of course this is an hoax... At the first few lines I called for it but when they say that he learn to behave like an human in 2 weeks, come on... This is ridiculous and impossible.
Mantat said:
I agree, unless some reputable organizations start confirming this, I'm not going to believe it. Fantastic story tho.
paul
Yeah, I might have bought three years... but three months? Seems impossible. In Siberia? Come on. The kid would still have been nursing. Was the guard dog female and lactating?
Still, it's a fun read.
Still, it's a fun read.
Yeah, probably a hoax. Strangely enough, I'm writing a paper comparing and contrasting first and second language acquisition. There are four ways to compare:
A) Child L1 vs. Adult L1
B) Child L1 vs. Adult L2
C) Child L2 vs. Child L1
D) Child L2 vs. Adult L2
Type A is normally not possible because there's very little modern evidence of it. The only case specifically mentioned in my text is the case of "Genie" who was kept in complete isolation by her parents until she was found at the age of about 13 years.
These cases are very important in examining the Critical Period Hypothesis. In other words, if it were true, it would probably be plastered over every major medical publication in the world.
Squire
A) Child L1 vs. Adult L1
B) Child L1 vs. Adult L2
C) Child L2 vs. Child L1
D) Child L2 vs. Adult L2
Type A is normally not possible because there's very little modern evidence of it. The only case specifically mentioned in my text is the case of "Genie" who was kept in complete isolation by her parents until she was found at the age of about 13 years.
These cases are very important in examining the Critical Period Hypothesis. In other words, if it were true, it would probably be plastered over every major medical publication in the world.
Squire
Er, what? Not being mean here - just not sure I follow. I'm assuming L1 and L2 are time to learn first and second languages?Squire said:
What is the Critical Period Hypothesis?
Yes Squire, a little more explanation (with numbers?) would be nice since it seem like an interesting subject.
I am a lazy scientist, so only the abstract with numbers would satisfy me ;-)
I am a lazy scientist, so only the abstract with numbers would satisfy me ;-)
jsw said:
Sorry about being vague. L1 and L2 just refer to first language and second language.
It refers to the idea that there is certain period (i.e. age) beyond which language acquisition becomes more difficult - or, before which it becomes easier. Most people agree that it's easier for kids to learn a language than it is for adults. This hypothesis tries to pinpoint that age.
Mantat said:
As far as numbers or ages are concerned, the verdict is still out. It's related to the process of brain lateralization - the assignment of neurological functions to the different halves of the brain. Some (Lenneberg, 1967) suggest that this process is complete by the onset of puberty. Learning a language after that time, therefore, is much more challenging. Others (Krashen, 1973) believe that the process of lateralization is complete by about the age five.
Squire
AS far as I know, there iisnt really a known age in which the possibility of proper mental and motor development becomes so small as to be considered impossible. Genie was found at the age of 13, and is basically a prisoner inside her own head (at least last I knew). I belive there was a noy found at the age of 8 (or was it 6)...that is making good progress, although he is developing much slower than your average child, and is obviously behind by several years.
In reality, very little is known about the the long-term effects of the deprivation of human contact during childhood, mainly due to the fact that so few of these cases ever come to light (and HOPEFULLY because so few of them occur).
In reality, very little is known about the the long-term effects of the deprivation of human contact during childhood, mainly due to the fact that so few of these cases ever come to light (and HOPEFULLY because so few of them occur).
Squire said:
Yeah, Genie was locked in a dark attic or something by her parents until she was 13, where she had to learn to see.
This story is supposedly true. Well, I trust the source. If it came from The Sun, then no, I'd have to doubt the source, but it isn't.
I also read it from another source, although their source of info could have been this particular article. 
pinto32 said:
True. And in a lot of cases that are documented, the child was abandoned because of some pre-existing mental problems. So they don't help in studies.
I Googled this and only came up with a few news agencies' reports. I'm still skeptical. As mentioned in emw's hilarious post above, it's difficult enough for an adult to raise a child. I mean, how would a dog feed a 3-month old baby? What about warmth? Infections? And the list goes on. In fact, as infants, humans are probably the most vulnerable species. They are completely helpless for the first few years.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing more about this as it'll be regarded as a hoax or miracle.
Squire
The story has made it into several Russian and other smaller newspapers. Amazing story, hard to believe but I don't think it's impossible.
acceber said:
But I think it's the same article circulating written by the same reporter - a guy named Andrew Osborn. I mean, this is the linguistic equivalent to finding rare dinosaur fossils. I don't know, it just seems odd that this is getting so little attention. At first, I thought, Well, it just happened so maybe something will pop up later. But after re-reading the article, it sounds like this boy was discovered a little while ago; there's no mention of dates in the story.
Squire
Abstract said:Yeah, Genie was locked in a dark attic or something by her parents until she was 13, where she had to learn to see.
Which Genie are you referring to? The one on this forums?
Sounds like bull **** to me.
However if this was true and it was determined that he could never gain human qualities an institution is no the answer, just execute him russia is in bad enough shap they dont need more people sucking money from the government living in an institution and not even being productive.
However if this was true and it was determined that he could never gain human qualities an institution is no the answer, just execute him russia is in bad enough shap they dont need more people sucking money from the government living in an institution and not even being productive.
phiberoptik957 said:
Wow! A great exemple of human spirit! I will put this on your lack of economic education. Just imagine if we remove from the world every person who wasnt productive to save money for the governement. Wold being a better place? I think not. A lot of people would suddently become jobless (psy, reab doctors, all the industry who make equipment to treat them, researchers, etc... ). Since these people would be jobless, they would suck money from the gov, so why not kill them at the same time? And you keep spinning that wheel until noone but yourself is left on the surface of the world, because you are of course the most usefull being there is; coming with such a rational way to manage society!
Sorry if I sound harsh but I cant stand people who make macro/micro-economic statement without knowing anything about its mecanism. Economy is far more complex than what it seems and every members of the society contribute to it, by its actions or its inaction. The contribution of each one is at a different degree but is complementory (sp?) to the others.
Mantat said:
I guess I should have been clearer. Before I go any farther I want to state: If some kind soul/private organization wants to pay to have this or any other non-productive member of society put up in an institution by all means go ahead. However I know that the governement will take the working people of the countries money to put this person in an instituion for the remainder of their life. I would rather have the said person disposed of rather than sucking up money because they have no ability.
Also: I would like to add that the government has NO money. Incase I wasnt clear enough, the government gets its money from robbing its working/productive citizens.