It's possible that due to the methodological limitations of Piaget, he systematically underestimated what children and babies know.

皮亚杰很可能由于研究方法上的局限,而系统地低估了婴幼儿的理解能力

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

So for instance, suppose you want to know, for whatever reason, do babies like the looks of dogs or cats?

比如说,假设你没来由的想知道,婴儿会喜欢狗的模样还是猫的摸样

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

So I don't know if it Does it matter what you say to babies as long as you say something.

所以我想知道,是不是只要你对婴儿说话就行,说话的内容并不重要

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

But undeniably we know most of our -- we got most of our knowledge about babies from studies of their looking times.

但不可否认的是,我们所拥有的绝大多数关于婴儿的知识,都来自于对婴儿注视次数的研究

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

And the idea is that babies are stupid, that babies really don't know much about the world.

那就是,婴儿是愚笨的,婴儿对世界一无所知

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

How do we explain when babies come to know things that they didn't originally know?

我们如何解释,婴儿何时掌握了原本并不知道的知识

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

We know this because if babies hear other babies crying they will get upset.

我们之所以会知道这点,是因为婴儿听到别的婴儿哭，他们会不高兴。

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

And it could be that babies don't know anything about objects.

这有可能是因为婴儿没有客体的概念

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

We know there are certain things babies don't know.

我们知道,某些事情婴儿并不理解

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

And to start with some real examples, a lot of this infant research has gone back to the Piagetian question of object permanence, asking, "Is it really true babies don't know that objects remain even when they're out of sight?"

下面给大家介绍一些实例,许多的婴儿研究都回到了,皮亚杰的客体永存性问题上,去探讨,"婴儿是否真的不知道,物体即使离开视线也仍然是存在的"

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选