So, your nanny is talking to the baby, about once very five minutes? So, about 20 times an hour? Do you have any idea how much she talks to the baby while taking her for a walk, or feeding her, or in places other than the baby's room?

Yes, babies need to be spoken and sung to, but they do not need constant 1-on-1 narration and interaction. They really don't.

Anonymous wrote:It looks like it's complicated for some people to understand that there are several ways to help raise children.

Because some of you think you NEED TO speak to a 6 months old baby doesn't mean you're absolutely right. It's a plus, it's not something that's required for them to be smart and healthy.

You are wrong, PP. Speaking to infants is in their best interest and does make them "smarter". Not talking to a baby is like feeding them junk food - yes, they will survive but not reach their full potential.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like it's complicated for some people to understand that there are several ways to help raise children.

Because some of you think you NEED TO speak to a 6 months old baby doesn't mean you're absolutely right. It's a plus, it's not something that's required for them to be smart and healthy.

You shouldn't work with kids.

+ 1 Or have children until you do a few minutes of research.

Anonymous wrote:It looks like it's complicated for some people to understand that there are several ways to help raise children.

Because some of you think you NEED TO speak to a 6 months old baby doesn't mean you're absolutely right. It's a plus, it's not something that's required for them to be smart and healthy.

You shouldn't work with kids.

Anonymous wrote:It looks like it's complicated for some people to understand that there are several ways to help raise children.

Because some of you think you NEED TO speak to a 6 months old baby doesn't mean you're absolutely right. It's a plus, it's not something that's required for them to be smart and healthy.

There are several ways to raise a child. But narration and talking has been proven to be one of the most beneficial things you can do - why wouldn't you do it? What does silence and treating a baby like a sack of potatoes get you?

This is not complicated, PP.

It looks like it's complicated for some people to understand that there are several ways to help raise children.

Because some of you think you NEED TO speak to a 6 months old baby doesn't mean you're absolutely right. It's a plus, it's not something that's required for them to be smart and healthy.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't make them smarter, stop the BS please !!

Yes, it does, PP. Please look it up and stop embarrassing yourself.

Brain synapses are pathways in the brain that make learning possible. Since 75 to 80% of all brain synapses are created in the first three years, it is important to create as many as possible as early as possible. Language is the strongest way to do this.

Anonymous wrote:Plus I see lots dummies nanny in here,my gosh...

Clearly someone should have spoken more to you as a baby, PP. "lots of dummies nanny"?

Plus I see lots dummies nanny in here,my gosh...

It doesn't make them smarter, stop the BS please !!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny here. I talk with older kids but not so much with such small babies. It's not natural for me to do so. It doesn't mean I don't care, because I absolutely do ...
They don't need so much talking at that age, let it go.

You are dead wrong, Nanny. Please read up on early childhood development. Babies absolutely need to hear as much language as possible as early as possible - narrating, reading, singing, and open conversation.

Talking to someone who cannot talk back is not natural to anyone, PP. You do it because it is in the best interest of the child.

WRONG. I have helped raised over 25 children and didn't talk to them a lot when they were this young. They are regular kids, just as smart and sweet as other kids.
It doesn't make a difference to talk to them or not this early.

You are out of date and very wrong, Nanny. Please look it up. Your former charges may well be "normal" but you have no idea how much higher their IQs would have been if you'd talked to them and narrated for them.

Either keep up with child development research or retire, Nanny.

The IQ has to do with the parents's own IQ. It doesn't have to do with being read to when you're a baby and can't understand a word!

Come on - you are so stunningly wrong and stupid that you have to be a troll. Babies learn to understand words BY HEARING WORDS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny here. I talk with older kids but not so much with such small babies. It's not natural for me to do so. It doesn't mean I don't care, because I absolutely do ...
They don't need so much talking at that age, let it go.

You are dead wrong, Nanny. Please read up on early childhood development. Babies absolutely need to hear as much language as possible as early as possible - narrating, reading, singing, and open conversation.

Talking to someone who cannot talk back is not natural to anyone, PP. You do it because it is in the best interest of the child.

WRONG. I have helped raised over 25 children and didn't talk to them a lot when they were this young. They are regular kids, just as smart and sweet as other kids.
It doesn't make a difference to talk to them or not this early.

You are out of date and very wrong, Nanny. Please look it up. Your former charges may well be "normal" but you have no idea how much higher their IQs would have been if you'd talked to them and narrated for them.

Either keep up with child development research or retire, Nanny.

The IQ has to do with the parents's own IQ. It doesn't have to do with being read to when you're a baby and can't understand a word!

If you are posting on here doubting if you have the right nanny then here is your answer. You need to replace your nanny. It's difficult to change the status quo. that's why you haven't made the move.

I would spend your time brainstorming all the ways you can go through the transition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny here. I talk with older kids but not so much with such small babies. It's not natural for me to do so. It doesn't mean I don't care, because I absolutely do ...
They don't need so much talking at that age, let it go.

You are dead wrong, Nanny. Please read up on early childhood development. Babies absolutely need to hear as much language as possible as early as possible - narrating, reading, singing, and open conversation.

Talking to someone who cannot talk back is not natural to anyone, PP. You do it because it is in the best interest of the child.

WRONG. I have helped raised over 25 children and didn't talk to them a lot when they were this young. They are regular kids, just as smart and sweet as other kids.
It doesn't make a difference to talk to them or not this early.

You are out of date and very wrong, Nanny. Please look it up. Your former charges may well be "normal" but you have no idea how much higher their IQs would have been if you'd talked to them and narrated for them.

Either keep up with child development research or retire, Nanny.

+1 The data on the benefits of talking, narrating and reading to a child from birth to three are conclusive. To use the line that babies not spoken to, "... are regular kids, just as smart and sweet as other kids" is challenging to prove a negative. Research says they would have been "smarter" (greater ability to learn and retain" had they been spoken to.

Our nanny has always narrated for DD as well as had conversations with her, read to her and sang to her since the day we brought her home from the hospital and so did DH and I. At three months, when we would tell her that we were going to pick her up she would tighten her muscles in anticipation. At six months, when we told her we were going to put on her sock, she would kick out her little leg. At 22 months old now she is speaking in full sentences, LOVES books, and is potty trained (because she understands language mostly but part is simply physical readiness).

Anyone who has ever tried to learn a second language knows that hearing the language is vital. Why would it be different for an infant?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny here. I talk with older kids but not so much with such small babies. It's not natural for me to do so. It doesn't mean I don't care, because I absolutely do ...
They don't need so much talking at that age, let it go.

You are dead wrong, Nanny. Please read up on early childhood development. Babies absolutely need to hear as much language as possible as early as possible - narrating, reading, singing, and open conversation.

Talking to someone who cannot talk back is not natural to anyone, PP. You do it because it is in the best interest of the child.

WRONG. I have helped raised over 25 children and didn't talk to them a lot when they were this young. They are regular kids, just as smart and sweet as other kids.
It doesn't make a difference to talk to them or not this early.

You are out of date and very wrong, Nanny. Please look it up. Your former charges may well be "normal" but you have no idea how much higher their IQs would have been if you'd talked to them and narrated for them.

Either keep up with child development research or retire, Nanny.