According to the developmental theories about children, Pearl is not yet old enough to "play well with others." And yet at rare times she really does play well.
Here she's pushing her friend Trinidad around the house in her red wagon. They're wearing coats because we're getting ready to go outdoors to enjoy Lights in the Heights, a big neighborhood celebration.
I think all those rules about development are made up by people whose children are slow. Maybe. I don't know. It's just that they all break the rules in one way or another, in my experience.
Posted by: Jo | 05 January 2005 at 10:40 PM
Yeah, kids can be friends and play together way earlier than the books say. Altruism also happens earlier. I think maybe they don't want people with really slow or really antisocial to feel bad.
Happy delurking day!
Posted by: elswhere | 06 January 2005 at 12:01 AM
Theory, schmeory.
We had three of my family's babies that were born this year together at christmas. Two were fussy (ours, of course was fine. A dull roar is comfortable for her) until we laid them down on the floor next to each other. None could even roll over, but they were happy as clams.
Posted by: Bob O'Shaughnessy | 06 January 2005 at 05:48 AM
that picture certainly disproves the theory! it is such a cute photo.. Pearl seems to look up to her little buddy
Posted by: ange | 06 January 2005 at 08:17 AM
Oh, dear. I think my son fits the theory perfectly. He is two and a half, and when he's around other children (either his age or younger) he tends to plays by himself. His interactions with his younger sister tend toward exclamations such as "No, no, no! Give that back!" Maybe after he starts preschool he'll be more sociable? Here's hoping.
Posted by: Suzanne | 06 January 2005 at 10:59 AM
Ahh, that's nice. Pay no attention to the experts - we have three girls, and they learn stuff and do stuff on their own timetables, not anyone else's.
Posted by: Isaac | 06 January 2005 at 03:06 PM
Sorry for that -- I kept getting an error saying I couldn't comment... but apparently I can. Hmm.
Posted by: Isaac | 06 January 2005 at 03:08 PM
And we must remember, all those Doctors who are the 'experts' are only PRACTICING...
Posted by: annette | 06 January 2005 at 04:47 PM
With the birth of my son I read the books religiously. I kept "What to Expect the First Year" on my coffee table and referred to it several times a day. I followed it thinking I would be a terrible mom if I didn't follow the "rules".
When my second was born I threw all the books away. She was a late bloomer in all aspects because of a genetic disease. The books made me feel guilty.
I think we should refer to the books as a guide only. Every child is unique and reaches the milestones eventually!
Posted by: Barbara | 06 January 2005 at 11:02 PM
Right after Lillianna was born (and I mean minutes after) she was lying on my stomach and she picked her head up and held it up.
The nurse said, "She's not supposed to be able to do that yet. Her neck muscles aren't strong enough." I said, "Ok well then YOU tell her!" and I laughed.
Milestones are just a suggestion as to when they might be achieved. To me they are like an E.T.A. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're not. Either way, you still get to your destination.
Pearl just keeps getting cuter!!
Posted by: RobinP | 08 January 2005 at 02:59 PM
Well, I did find that after three, real sociability set in and after four, friendship and other children became almost the most important things in life for my son. But that's not to say that a one year old can't enjoy being with other kids - especially older kids. Pearl looks as if she really admires her bigger friend.
Posted by: susoz | 09 January 2005 at 09:04 PM