“Oh and by the way, children can speak quite well at three.”
Some can and some can’t. Father Nader is referring more to the discrepancy between Jen’s speaking voice/persona at the time and the one in that piece of writing Doctor Eden is reading.
btw, one thing I probably should’ve made clearer is that the scene begins with Doctor Eden reading the last sentence of what Jen wrote. Out of curiosity, did I (inadvertently) lead anyone into assuming all Jen wrote was that one sentence?
I worked at a home daycare and I knew a little boy who was 4 and could barely speak. We had to have a speech therapist come in a couple times a week to work with him. So yeah…some 3 year olds can’t…but in the line of work I was in, it was very rare for me to see a 3 year old speak full sentences clearly.
I’m an assistant at an accredited preschool, I have 32 ecd units, and I work with 2s and 3s. If they don’t have a decent amount of working language by three, its an issue.
Heheheh. I’d say it’s impressive that Rona turned out the way she did having to grow up with THAT… but I guess it takes the same sort of persistent curiosity Rona has to get a Ph.D, doesn’t it…
She’s a professional “I haven’t seen it, so it can’t be true” kind of person. It’s not exactly condescending, it’s just being so closed minded that nothing can get in. Can’t exactly blame her, so many fakes and frauds use “possession” to try and escape the consequences of their crimes, and so many who genuinely BELIEVE that they are when they are not (drugs, schizophrenia, etc.) that psychotherapists have to become jaded just to do their job. There’s also the fact that psychotherapists who genuinely believe in demons or have evidence in the supernatural tend to have their reputations “crucified” by their “peers” and their careers destroyed by the “media.” All irrefutable evidence also tends to get “misplaced.” The rest is just “debunked.” All in all, it’s a very dangerous aspect of the field.
It’s just the way the mental sciences teach you. How they’re trained to solve problems; if someone is acting weird, it’s because there’s something wrong with their brain or their personality. Everything has a rational explanation. And the notion of the soul went out with the Enlightenment. After going through that for the better part of ten years to get an advanced degree, it’s hard to remain open-minded to a possibility that you’d get failing grades for entertaining.
That and what Uhl said. Most things do have rational explanations… and the rest of the time, you can usually find something that suits your views if you’re not ready to look for the truth.
I bet both side come out of this thinking they were right, after all, whatever treatment Rona’s mom used obviously “worked”. Jen is unaware of the Lady and acts more normally. If you look at it another way, they are both doing the same thing. Rona’s mother is ruling out a supernatural solution because she’s trained to look for a psychological one. In the same way, the priest is ruling out a psychological solution because he is trained to look for a supernatural one. We know better, but if an outside person saw just this page, they might be more likely to believe Rona’s mother.
Assuming that you know it all is usually a pretty good starting point when you have to make difficult decitions, even if it isn’t actually true. You can act much more confidently that way. Of course, it is important to be open to the possibility that you are wrong if signs start pointing that way, but face it guys, Nadar isn’t particularly convincing.
From the psychologist’s standpoint then – where, exactly, does a three-year-old get a grasp of archaic English and melodrama? The doctor is right to sound doubting, since the initial response would be “someone else wrote this”.
But if someone else *didn’t*? Then it’s time to do a hell of a heavy investigation into the living environment of the child in question. And if no evidence about what could cause that comes up *still*…
Um…oops?
Oh and by the way, children can speak quite well at three. You’re thinking two, probably.
“Oh and by the way, children can speak quite well at three.”
Some can and some can’t. Father Nader is referring more to the discrepancy between Jen’s speaking voice/persona at the time and the one in that piece of writing Doctor Eden is reading.
btw, one thing I probably should’ve made clearer is that the scene begins with Doctor Eden reading the last sentence of what Jen wrote. Out of curiosity, did I (inadvertently) lead anyone into assuming all Jen wrote was that one sentence?
Nope. At least not to me and I am also assuming that it is Jen’s notebook.
It took me some ten or so seconds to realize that it was way more than a sentence, yes. But then, I am newly awake.
Or rather, the end of the second panel made it clear.
I think the elipsis makes clear that there’s more preceding that phrase, though it isn’t clear whether it’s the last sentence.
Hmmm. Experts. Think they know it all. 😉
And it’s usually the shrinks that need to be analyzed too…
I worked at a home daycare and I knew a little boy who was 4 and could barely speak. We had to have a speech therapist come in a couple times a week to work with him. So yeah…some 3 year olds can’t…but in the line of work I was in, it was very rare for me to see a 3 year old speak full sentences clearly.
I mean to say “Some three year olds can”
I’m an assistant at an accredited preschool, I have 32 ecd units, and I work with 2s and 3s. If they don’t have a decent amount of working language by three, its an issue.
Sorry, don’t mean to nitpick, but this is kinda my area XD
i’m don’t jen’s ability to talk is the main focus on this,
more her ability to write and spell perfectly and use english with archaic grammar
and anyway, i’m fairly sure most 3 year olds can’t write at all
Heheheh. I’d say it’s impressive that Rona turned out the way she did having to grow up with THAT… but I guess it takes the same sort of persistent curiosity Rona has to get a Ph.D, doesn’t it…
This is early I know, but I’m not liking Rona’s mom too much right now. I just get a very condescending vibe from her.
She’s a professional “I haven’t seen it, so it can’t be true” kind of person. It’s not exactly condescending, it’s just being so closed minded that nothing can get in. Can’t exactly blame her, so many fakes and frauds use “possession” to try and escape the consequences of their crimes, and so many who genuinely BELIEVE that they are when they are not (drugs, schizophrenia, etc.) that psychotherapists have to become jaded just to do their job. There’s also the fact that psychotherapists who genuinely believe in demons or have evidence in the supernatural tend to have their reputations “crucified” by their “peers” and their careers destroyed by the “media.” All irrefutable evidence also tends to get “misplaced.” The rest is just “debunked.” All in all, it’s a very dangerous aspect of the field.
It’s just the way the mental sciences teach you. How they’re trained to solve problems; if someone is acting weird, it’s because there’s something wrong with their brain or their personality. Everything has a rational explanation. And the notion of the soul went out with the Enlightenment. After going through that for the better part of ten years to get an advanced degree, it’s hard to remain open-minded to a possibility that you’d get failing grades for entertaining.
That and what Uhl said. Most things do have rational explanations… and the rest of the time, you can usually find something that suits your views if you’re not ready to look for the truth.
I bet both side come out of this thinking they were right, after all, whatever treatment Rona’s mom used obviously “worked”. Jen is unaware of the Lady and acts more normally. If you look at it another way, they are both doing the same thing. Rona’s mother is ruling out a supernatural solution because she’s trained to look for a psychological one. In the same way, the priest is ruling out a psychological solution because he is trained to look for a supernatural one. We know better, but if an outside person saw just this page, they might be more likely to believe Rona’s mother.
Assuming that you know it all is usually a pretty good starting point when you have to make difficult decitions, even if it isn’t actually true. You can act much more confidently that way. Of course, it is important to be open to the possibility that you are wrong if signs start pointing that way, but face it guys, Nadar isn’t particularly convincing.
From the psychologist’s standpoint then – where, exactly, does a three-year-old get a grasp of archaic English and melodrama? The doctor is right to sound doubting, since the initial response would be “someone else wrote this”.
But if someone else *didn’t*? Then it’s time to do a hell of a heavy investigation into the living environment of the child in question. And if no evidence about what could cause that comes up *still*…