THE EVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF CHILDHOOD

08 MINDFIELDS | JUNE 2012 WWW.MINDFIELDS.IN
Educator
SCHOOL OF
TOMORROW
November 2011
2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
The XSEED Conference on the Future of School Education
Special Feature
THE EVOLUTIONARY
ROLE OF CHILDHOOD
Children learn about the world just as scientists do – making predictions, conducting
experiments, analyzing statistics and forming theories. Drawing on her most recent research,
renowned scholar and best selling author, Alison Gopnik, demonstrates how cognitive abilities
of babies and young children far surpasses what adults normally attribute them with.
Illustration by Amruta Patil
Some of the research my colleagues
and I have done over the last
thirty years has completely
revolutionised the way we think about babies
and young children, and herefore the way we
think about basic human learning capacities.
What we have discovered is that even the very
youngest of babies and very young children
have capacities to learn that are greater than
those of the most illustrious of scientists.
Discovering these tremendous natural
capacities to learn ought to influence the way
we teach children.
If we think that education is all about trying to
encourage learning, then knowing something
about just how powerful these natural learning
capacities are, should help us to improve our
educational system. What I am going to do
today is talk about the fundamental science of
learning that has emerged, especially over the
past ten years.
Let’s start with one of those questions that you
think people would ask, but they rarely do:
“Why is it that we have a period of childhood
at all?” In fact, “why do we have children at
all?” If you think about it, at least from some
perspectives, you could argue that babies and
young children are useless after all.They don’t
go out and work; they don’t bring home the
bacon; in fact, in some ways, they are worse
than useless because we grown-ups have to
spend so much of our time and energy just
keeping them alive and taking care of them.
MF16 Pg 08-15 Gopnik:Layout 2 11/07/12 9:36 AM Page 2

2012 JUNE | MINDFIELDS 09WWW.MINDFIELDS.IN
Educator
So, from a scientific perspective, one of
the questions we want to ask is, “Why,
from an evolutionary perspective, do we
actually have this period of childhood at
all?”; “Why does childhood even exist?”
It’s a particularly interesting question for
us because human beings have a much
longer period of childhood – a much
longer period of immaturity – than any
other species.
So, our babies and children are
dependent on us for much longer than
the children of any other species are
dependent on their grown-ups. My
oldest son is twenty two, and even now
we,as his parents,continue investing our
resources in taking care of him.
It turns out that when we look at
evolution, there is something of an
explanation for this. Consider two
animals. On the one hand, there is the
crow, in particular the new Caledonian
crow.Crows,ravens and other animals of
the Corvidae family are extremely
intelligent animals.The new Caledonian
crow was featured on the cover of
Science magazine because it has learned
how to use a tool, how to bend a wire in
order to be able to get at a piece of food.
Coincidently, crows have extremely long
periods of immaturity as well; crow
babies are immature, helpless and
dependent fledglings for as long as a year.
In the case of Caledonian crows, this
period lasts as long as two years, which
is a very, very long time in the life of a
crow. So these are animals that are
extremely intelligent, rely a lot on
learning, have relatively large brains, are
very flexible, and are “smart animals.”
On the other hand,we have the domestic
chicken. It represents chickens, turkeys,
geese, ducks and all of the birds in this
family. With apologies to all chicken
lovers, these birds are basically dumb.
Though these animals are extremely
good at pecking for grain, they are not
much good at doing anything else. Note
that chicken babies mature within a
space of few weeks or months.
What we observe is that, there seems to
be a correlation between the length of
the period of immaturity in the young
(how long the babies are dependent and
helpless) and the flexibility and
intelligence in them as adult animals.
Further, this seems true not only for
birds. Recent reports regarding
marsupials are echoing this observation.
Marsupials are animals like kangaroos
and wombats, found mostly in Australia
and New Zealand. Among marsupials,
the longer the babies live in the mother’s
pouch, the larger the size of the adult
brain.
There is another interesting aspect to this
story: when babies are immature for such
long periods, the adults have to put in
“greater parental investment.” So the
longer the period of immaturity, the
larger the brain and the better the adult
is at learning, the more the time and
energy that the parents invest in raising
those babies. This is once again evident
when you compare quokkas and
opossums.
Quokkas are marsupials with very large
brains and generally both the parent
quokkas are engaged in taking care of
just one baby. Opossums, on the other
hand, are much more small-brained
marsupials, and they often have many
more babies and there is very little
opportunity for parental investment.
The question that arises now is: “Why
would you see this correlation between
how smart the adult animal is,how much
the adult animal relies on learning, and
how long a period of immaturity the
adult undergoes as a baby?”
Animals use a number of strategies to
survive. Some animals, like the chicken
and the opossums,might be very good at
doing just one thing over and over again.
They are very well-suited for one
particular evolutionary task.
Other creatures like the crows and
human beings are not good at doing
anything in particular, but are adept at
learning to do new things, things that
will suit whatever environment they find
themselves in.
In this manner, we learn to be able to do
all the things that we need to do, to
survive as animals. The latter is a very
good strategy in a lot of ways. Very
characteristic of human beings, it is this
strategy that has allowed us to exist and
It’s a particularly
interesting question
for us because human
beings have a much longer
period of childhood – a
much longer period of
immaturity – than any
other species.
So the longer the
period of immaturity,
the larger the brain
and the better the
adult is at learning, the
more the time and
energy that the
parents invest in
raising those babies.
SCHOOL OF
TOMORROW
November 2011
2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
Special Feature

Educator
SCHOOL OF
TOMORROW
November 2011
2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
Special Feature
survive in more environments than any
other animal, including in outer space.
However, this strategy has one great
drawback: Until you do all of the
learning you have to do, you’re going to
be helpless. For example, suppose a
mastodon is charging at you. At that
moment, you cannot say to yourself,
“What shall I do about this? Should I
use a stick or a slingshot? What would
be more effective?.” Instead, you should
have already figured out how to deal with
the situation, before the mastodons
actually show up.
So, how and when do we learn all that
needs to be learned? Evolution seems to
have solved this problem by developing
a kind of division of labor.As a result,we
have the early protected period of
childhood (in which all we have to do is
to learn) and then we have adulthood
(when we take the things we learned as
very young children and put them to use,
to solve problems and do all the things
that we need to do as adults).
Our babies are like the research and
development division of the human
species, while adults are like the
production and marketing division. So,
there are the ones designed to focus on
learning, finding out, and exploring, and
there is us, the ones who have to take
what we learned in that early period and
use it in our everyday lives.
This division of labor seems to be the
reason we see this correlation between
immaturity in the young and intelligence
in the adult across so many different
species and kinds of animals.
Another way to think about it is using a
computer science analogy. Computer
scientists differentiate between systems
that explore (systems that can learn
easily,try out lot of different hypotheses)
and those that exploit (systems that can
take one thing and do it extremely well).
Computer scientists have discovered that
both exploiting and exploring are crucial
for a system that is going to be able to
learn effectively. In fact, in machine
learning, for example in a computer
learning system, in the beginning the
system starts out by being in the explore
mode, where it tries lots and lots of
different things, exploring lots of
possibilities, and even very unlikely
options. After a while,however,it moves
into the exploit mode, where it chooses
to do the things that are the best and
most effective for itself. Now if this
evolutionary picture is true,I believe that
children are designed to be in this
explore mode.This implies that children
are literally for learning.
The reason why we have children is so
that they can explore the world and find
out all the things they need to do, that
they can then use and exploit as adults.
Now if this were true, we should not be
thinking about children as being sort of
defective grown-ups, or as grown-ups
that do not have some of the wonderful
capacities we have as grown-ups.
A more appropriate way would be to
think of children as being in a specific
developmental phase of the species, that
is different from the phase of being an
adult. To clarify, the difference between
children and adults is rather like the
difference between caterpillars and
butterflies.
In our case, however, the children would
be the butterflies who are fluttering
around, exploring and discovering the
world, while we would be the adult
caterpillars who are humping along our
particular narrow adult path.
Now, if childhood is a different phase in
the developmental history of a species,
we might expect to see some signs of this
difference reflected in the brain
structures of children and adults. It turns
out that we do!
When we look at the development of
neuro connections in the brain,there are a
couple of interesting things that happen
as children grow older. First of all, when
you look at the brain in the early period
when a child is very young, you can see
that many, many new neuro connections
are being formed across the brain.
As the child grows older, in the later
periods of a child’s life, the connections
that are effective continue to be used and
maintained.However,there is a bunch of
other neuro connections called “prude.”
These are neuro connections that are
being or have been dropped off.
Our babies are like
the research and
development division of
the human species, while
adults are like the
production and
marketing division.
The reason
why we have
children is so that they
can explore the world
and find out all the
things they need to do,
that they can then
use and exploit
as adults.

Educator
Further, if you were to plot these
different kinds of neuro connections
along a curve, you will see there is an
early period, when many, many new
connections are being formed,and a later
period, when this formation drops off.
This process of forming and dropping
neuro connections reflects the kinds of
learning that children are doing at
different phases. For example, the
connections in the visual cortex, are
formed by the time children are about a
year old,implying that by then the visual
system has already been established.
Various parts of the brain establish
themselves at different times. For
example,the process of connecting in the
auditory cortex, which is responsible for
language,isn’t done until the children are
five years old, when they learn to speak.
Connections in the prefrontal cortex,the
part of the brain that is like the chief
executive office of the brain, responsible
for things like planning and control, are
not finished and fully matured until the
mid-20s, well into adulthood.
So there is an early period when the
brain seems to be trying out lots of new
things, where there is a great deal of
flexibility.Then gradually, as children get
older, the flexibility decreases as the
brain gets better and better at doing one
thing in particular,till it is not as good at
being flexible and becomes more plastic
at changing or managing to learn new
things.
This evolutionary picture of the brain
reiterates that, especially in the early
period, children are really designed to
explore and to learn. We don’t have to
teach them how to learn or make them
learn; they are designed to learn
spontaneously by themselves.
So,if this is the case,when do we see this
kind of learning? Over the last 15 years
or so, we have discovered that even very
young children are capable of using
complicated statistical patterns to infer
how the world works, to discover the
causal structure of the world.
What’s even more impressive is that
children usually do a set of natural
experiments that allow them to learn
more about how the world actually
works.The way that they do these natural
experiments is by doing what we grown-
ups think of as “just playing around.”
Now it’s been an idea that’s been around
in developmental psychology and in
education, I think intuitively, for a long
time – that children are actually learning
through play; that by playing, by just
exploring the world around them, they
are actually figuring out how the
world works.
Children Are Learning Through Play
Until recently,however,we didn’t actually
have very good systematic scientific
evidence to show that children were
actually learning just through their
spontaneous play. Over the past five or
six years, though, an increasing number
of studies have demonstrated that what
just looks like children’s spontaneous play
is really a kind of research strategy that’s
helps them figure out how the world
around them works.
The study by Christine Legare at the
University of Texas, Austin, is an
example. Christine gave children a
particular kind of problem to solve and
then asked them to explain how that
particular system worked. The system
consisted of a machine made of blocks.
When presented to a little boy, he saw
that some blocks made this machine go,
while others did not. Then he noticed
that the red ones made it move while the
yellow ones didn’t.Then he saw that one
of the yellow ones did not help the
machine move.
So Christine asked him “Can you figure
out why that block didn’t work and can
you figure out why the machine goes the
way it does?” In answer, the boy began
manipulating the blocks systematically,
one after another, observing all the
changes each manipulation resulted in,
and figured out that some machines
needed two blocks to light up while
others needed four!
When the same experiment was repeated
with several other children, all aged
between four and five, they all followed
the same general pattern of
experimentation and manipulation to
reach their conclusions.
SCHOOL OF
TOMORROW
November 2011
2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
Special Feature
...there is an early
period when the brain
seems to be trying out
lots of new things, where
there is a great deal of
flexibility. Then gradually,
as children get older,
the flexibility
decreases
...children are actually
learning through play;
that by playing, by just
exploring the world
around them, they are
actually figuring out
how theworld works.

Educator
Thus, when you give the children a real
problem to solve with real objects,
and particularly when you give
them what Christine called an “anomaly”
(something unexpected or unusual) and
ask them to explain it,they produce these
kinds of experimental behaviors in the
very course of their play.
In the experiment, the little boy actually
tested five different hypotheses about
how that block could work in the course
of two minutes of spontaneous play! So,
by giving children a real system,one that
you really had to understand and explain,
or by giving them something
that didn’t quite fit (didn’t suit what they
already believed), you could provoke the
children to produce extremely intelligent
exploratory kinds of behaviors.
In Christine’s experiments, this was true
not just of particularly bright and
articulate children, but about children
in general.
Spontaneous Exploratory Play Is
Actually A Very Systematic Research
Program
Another experiment was done by Laura
Schulz and her colleagues at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT).They wanted to try and test more
systematically the idea that when
children play, they are spontaneously
exploring and finding evidence that
would be relevant to the problems they
are trying to solve.
The team was interested in problems
about causes, problems about what kind
of things make what other things
happen. In their experiments they used
the same block and lighting up of the
machine – the Blicket Detector – that
was used in Christine’s experiment. The
Blicket Detector was invented in my lab
a few years ago and it has turned out to
be incredibly valuable for a very simple
and inexpensive little piece of equipment.
Laura Schulz and her colleagues tried to
see if four year old children would play
differently, would manipulate a toy
differently, depending on what its causal
structure is like. In the first part of the
experiment,they showed the children an
object – a toy – in one of two different
conditions. What the children saw were
a pair of little beads, those that you can
put together to make a single pair.
In the first condition, the children saw
that the two beads can be put together
and when the two beads are together,
they always made the toy go.
They also saw that each of the individual
beads could make the toy go. In the
second condition, the children saw that
some of the individual beads made the
toy go but some individual beads didn’t
make the toy go.
Finally, the children were all given a pair
of beads, and these beads were either
glued together or were two beads that
they could pull apart from each other.
They were then left to play with the toy.
The inherent assumptions about the
causal structure were as follows. If you
had seen that all of the beads always
make the toy go, then you already know
that both of the beads you now have in
the pair are likely to make it go. But if
you had seen that only some of the beads
make it go and others don’t make it go,
then there might be an interesting
question to ask:“Which of the beads will
make the toy go?”
What was discovered was that the
children were much more unlikely to pull
the beads apart in the case where the
causal assumption was that all the beads
made the toy go. When all of the beads
made it go, they simply put the
combined glued pair onto the detector
and did nothing more.
However, in the case where the
assumption was that only some of the
beads made the toy go, the children
pulled the toy apart and then tried one
bead after another on it. This was easily
possible in the case where the children
were presented with two beads that
could be separated.
In the case where the beads were actually
glued together so you couldn’t separate
them, the children used a strategy of
holding and twisting the glued pair so
that one part (one bead) was in touch
with the toy at first, and then the other.
SCHOOL OF
TOMORROW
November 2011
2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
Special Feature
They
wanted to try
and test more
systematically the idea
that when children play,
they are spontaneously
exploring and finding
evidence that would be
relevant to the problems
they are trying to
solve.
...when
you give the
children a real problem
to solve with real objects,
and particularly when you
give them what Christine
called an“anomaly”...and ask
them to explain it, they
produce these kinds of
experimental behaviors
in the very course of
their play.

Educator
So even when they couldn’t solve the
problem by pulling the beads apart, they
solved it by moving the beads in one
direction or another.They never did that
when all of the beads had made the toy
go, because there was no need to know
which bead made it go and which bead
did not.
These experimental scenarios clearly
show that what looks like just
spontaneous exploratory play is actually a
very systematic research program that
these very young children are using, to
try to solve problems about the causal
structure of the world around them, to
try and figure out how the world around
them actually works.
These experiments, along with a number
of other recent experiments, show that
even five-year-olds are using their play to
learn and that the method they use looks
a lot like the one that the very brightest,
most intelligent, and most illustrious
scientists use to learn.
If children are learning so much through
their spontaneous enquiries,explorations,
and free play, what does this exploratory
enquiry learning look like when we sit
down to teach children about the world?
In the past few years, we have started
looking much more systematically at the
relationship between learning and
teaching. To illustrate, let us look at a
couple more experiments that have
pitted this kind of spontaneous
exploratory learning against teaching, a
situation where one has an instructor
telling you what you are supposed to do.
Good teachers encourage exploration
anyway but here we are considering the
more common kind of teaching, where
the teacher knows what the right answer
is and is telling the child this before the
child begins the exploration at all.
In the first experiment, conducted in
Laura Shultz’s lab at MIT, they showed
the children a novel toy.This toy has four
interesting properties. The first is that it
has a little squeaker , which if pushed
makes a squeak. Second, it has a light
that lights up when you look in it.Third,
it has a mirror at the end of one of the
tubes in the toy where you can see
reflections.Fourth,there is another piece
that you can push to make music.
So there are four novel things that this
toy can do,but none of them are obvious.
One has to explore a bit to find out that
the toy can do all of these four things.
These toys were given to the children in
two diﬀerent conditions. In the first
condition, while giving the child the toy
to play with,the experimenter would sort
of accidentally bump into the toy in
a way that one of the four things were
set oﬀ.
For example, the toy would squeak. The
experimenter would then say something
like,“Gee! Wonder why that happened!”
Then bump into something else,setting a
second interesting aspect of the
toy off.
Then, the experimenter would simply
leave the toy with the child, to see what
the child would do with it. It was found
that the child would then play around
with the toy and eventually end up
finding the different things the toy
could do, in the course of their
spontaneous play.
The second condition had almost
everything that was the same as the
first, except that this time the
experimenter showed the child the
toy and said, “This is my toy. I’m
going to show you how it works.”
Then the experimenter would show
the child only one of the things that
the toy does and would then leave
the child alone.
In these cases, the experimenters
found that the child did not explore
the toy and find the other things
that the toy does. Instead, the child
would keep doing what the
experimenter had showed him.
From consistent responses to these
scenarios, the experimenters
discovered that when you give the
children the answer, they never
really discover the other
possibilities within the learning
situation. The implications of this
are multiple.
On the one hand,direct instructions and
teaching is a good way of giving
children a single right answer, and
children seem to be sensitive to that.
SCHOOL OF
TOMORROW
November 2011
2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
Special Feature
These
experiments,
along with a number
of other recent
experiments, show that
even five-year-olds are using
their play to learn and that the
method they use looks a lot
like the one that the very
brightest, most intelligent,
and most illustrious
scientists use to
learn.
From consistent
responses to these
scenarios, the
experimenters
discovered that when
you give the children
the answer, they never
really discover the
other possibilities
within the learning
situation.

Educator
Children seem to know that if the
teacher tells you “this is the way the toy
works,” then that is the way the toy
works and that’s all there is to the way
the toy works.
On the other hand, it seems that in
this circumstance the children did not
do the kind of wide ranging
exploration that would give them other
answers, that would let them find a
more diverse range of answers for the
same problem.
The experimenters, Laura and Liz,
titled their paper reporting this
experiment “The ‘double-edged sword’
of Pedagogy”.The idea is that pedagogy
is sort of a double-edged sword.On the
one hand, it lets you get a piece of
information across to a child very
effectively. On the other hand, it may
limit the kind of spontaneous
exploration children are capable of.
Children Are Good at Learning
from Complicated Statistical
Patterns.
Another experiment which makes the
same kind of point was done in my lab.
It shows that, in addition to having
capacities for experimentation in
exploration that lets them learn,
children are also very good at learning
from statistical patterns, even quite
complicated kinds of statistical patterns.
This experiment was also to try and see
if children could figure out what it is
that caused what. In this experiment
with four-year-olds we gave them a
musical toy.
The toy has lots of things that you
could do to it – handles and rings to
pull, shake the toy, squash the toy, etc.
In addition, sometimes the toy plays
music, and sometimes it doesn’t.
When the experimenter gave the toy
to the child, she would produce three
different actions. For example, she
would pull the handle,and then squash
the toy, and then shake the toy. When
she did this, sometimes the machine
would play music and sometimes it
wouldn’t. The children saw ten
sequences like this; ten combinations
of different actions that sometimes led
to an answer and sometimes didn’t. At
the end of it, the experimenter would
give the child the toy and simply ask
the child to have a go at the toy itself.
What the experimenters were looking
to record was what the child would
decide to do. Which actions would
the child produce to make the toy
actually go?
Here are the different kind of patterns
of actions and outcomes the children
got to see.If you were a statistician,you
would see that only the last two
actions, the B and C actions, were
necessary to make the toy go in the BC
Condition.
You would conclude that the most
likely alternative is that only the last
two actions were necessary to make the
machine go. If you were looking at the
other patterns of results that we saw,
you’d draw different conclusions.
If for instance,you saw that a particular
sequence of the three actions always
made it go, you might conclude that
you needed all three actions to make it
go. Or, if you saw that only the last
action made it go, the sensible thing
would be to conclude that, in C
Condition, only the last action was
necessary to make it go.
The question that we were asking
ourselves was,“Would the children use
this statistical pattern to figure out a
really intelligent solution to this
problem?” The most intelligent
solution was to produce just the two
actions by themselves, even though
they had seen that demonstrated by
the experimenter.
What we observed was that when a
child is shown a complicated pattern
of actions, one which made the toy
play music and another which resulted
in no music, they pulled out the right
solution, which was that only the last
two actions were necessary to produce
the music.
This was a sign of that children,
spontaneously behaving in this
incredibly intelligent way, are able to
analyze data that even adults have a
hard time doing, in some
circumstances.
SCHOOL OF
TOMORROW
November 2011
2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
Special Feature
The idea is that
pedagogy is sort of a
double-edged sword. On
the one hand, it lets you get
a piece of information across
to a child very effectively. On
the other hand, it may limit
the kind of spontaneous
exploration children
are capable of.
...in
addition to
having capacities for
experimentation in
exploration that lets them
learn, children are also very
good at learning from
statistical patterns, even
quite complicated
kinds of statistical
patterns.

Educator
Then we tried to do a somewhat different
version of the experiment. This time,
when the experimenter gave the child
the musical toy, she would say, “This is
my toy and I don’t even know how it
works…”
Then in another version, we did the
experiment exactly the same way except
this time we told the child, “This is my
toy and I’m going to show you how it
works.”Whenever we did it this way,the
children always just imitated exactly
what the experimenter did and did no
exploration.
They did exactly the same set of three
actions that the experimenter had
performed, but they literally never
produced the more intelligent solution,
of just using the last two actions, by
themselves. Yet again, there seems to be
a kind of double-edged sword regarding
teaching or directly instructing a child.
Directly instructing a child may get them
to one solution, the one answer that you
think is the right answer, but it may
actually prevent them from spontaneously
getting to the really intelligent solutions,
which they would get to if just you let
them exercise their own natural
spontaneous learning abilities.
For people who are teaching, this
suggests that we have a great
opportunity, because children (even the
very young ones) are equipped by
evolution with these extremely powerful
learning abilities. In fact, that is what
children are for: children are for learning.
It is not just a nice coincidence that they
have these wonderful learning abilities.
The very reason they are children is to
give them a chance to have these
powerful learning abilities. What we
would suggest for schools, is to
encourage and allow these learning
abilities to blossom, to get children to
apply these learning abilities to a very
wide range of subjects and to a wide
range of domains.However,what we end
up doing is the opposite – squelching
those learning abilities.
This is not to say that there isn’t a place
for giving children direct instructions.In
fact one of the things that our
experiments show is that children as
young as four and five are already
sensitive to the fact that a teacher knows
something that they may not know, and
that they should learn differently when
they are learning from a teacher.
However, if that be the only way of
teaching children, it is not really taking
advantage of these extremely powerful,
inbuilt, evolutionarily determined brain
mechanisms that are there, that are
allowing them to learn as much as they
actually do. If we are going to teach
children the way that they are designed
to learn,what we need to do is give them
opportunities to explore,to enquire,to do
the sort of research and development
that they were actually designed for. n
Adapted from a talk by Alison Gopnik at the XSEED
School of Tomorrow Conference 2011
SCHOOL OF
TOMORROW
November 2011
2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m.
Special Feature
Directly instructing a
child may get them to
one solution, the one
answer that you think
is the right answer, but
it may actually prevent
them from
spontaneously getting
to the really intelligent
solutions
ALISOn GOPnIk is a professor of
psychology and an affiliate
professor of philosophy at the
University of California, Berkeley.
An internationally recognized
leader in the study of children’s
learning and development, she was
the first to argue that children’s
minds could help us understand
deep philosophical questions.
She is the author of over a hundred
journal articles and of several
books, including the best-selling
and critically acclaimed books, “The
Scientist in the Crib” and “The
Philosophical Baby.”
She has also written widely about
cognitive science and psychology
for Science, The Times Literary
Supplement, The New York Review of
Books, and The New York Times.

THE EVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF CHILDHOOD

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to THE EVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF CHILDHOOD

Similar to THE EVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF CHILDHOOD (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

THE EVOLUTIONARY ROLE OF CHILDHOOD