<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" encoding="UTF-8" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:fireside="http://fireside.fm/modules/rss/fireside">
  <channel>
    <fireside:hostname>web01.fireside.fm</fireside:hostname>
    <fireside:genDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:39:12 -0500</fireside:genDate>
    <generator>Fireside (https://fireside.fm)</generator>
    <title>The It's Innate! Podcast - Episodes Tagged with “Methods”</title>
    <link>https://itsinnate.fireside.fm/tags/methods</link>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2023 22:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
    <description>Two opinionated developmental cognitive scientists wax theoretical about how infants and children acquire knowledge!
</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
    <itunes:subtitle>A podcast by two developmental cognitive scientists</itunes:subtitle>
    <itunes:author>Deon Benton &amp; Jenny Wang</itunes:author>
    <itunes:summary>Two opinionated developmental cognitive scientists wax theoretical about how infants and children acquire knowledge!
</itunes:summary>
    <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/e/e7d55467-26ad-4d13-aa3b-ffe8a883b0bb/cover.jpg?v=1"/>
    <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>Deon Benton &amp; Jenny Wang</itunes:name>
      <itunes:email>theitsinnatepodcast@gmail.com</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
<itunes:category text="Education"/>
<itunes:category text="Science">
  <itunes:category text="Social Sciences"/>
</itunes:category>
<itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture">
  <itunes:category text="Philosophy"/>
</itunes:category>
<item>
  <title>Episode 2: When 1+1 equals more, not 2</title>
  <link>https://itsinnate.fireside.fm/2</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">167f36d4-6ae3-4348-bd83-441e0cef159f</guid>
  <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2023 22:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
  <author>Deon Benton &amp; Jenny Wang</author>
  <enclosure url="https://aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/e7d55467-26ad-4d13-aa3b-ffe8a883b0bb/167f36d4-6ae3-4348-bd83-441e0cef159f.mp3" length="84316032" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Deon Benton &amp; Jenny Wang</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>1:27:49</itunes:duration>
  <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
  <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/e/e7d55467-26ad-4d13-aa3b-ffe8a883b0bb/cover.jpg?v=1"/>
  <description>Candy and Deon begin this episode by discussing a recent email exchange between Jonathan Kominsky and Martin Packer about whether studies that use puppets are really testing young children's theory of mind rather than, for example, their "theory of puppets." Spoiler: Candy is less optimistic that they are; Deon is much more optimistic that, at the very least, they are approaching the question in the right way . Candy and Deon then discuss a seminal paper by Wynn (1992) that examined 5-month-olds' capacity to add and subtract small numbers. Specifically, they discuss whether the claim "that infants are able to compute the precise results of simple additions and subtractions" (Wynn, 1992, p. 749) is supported by the data. Candy and Deon discuss why they think that the claim is not supported by the data and then go on to discuss some mixed evidence for this claim from follow-up replication attempts. 
Links 
Cohen, L.B., &amp;amp; Marks, K.S. (2002). How infants process addition and subtraction events. Developmental Science, 5(2), 186-201. Link to paper (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-7687.00220?casa_token=wuzQ1nJKEiAAAAAA:rnnXBlspfWDFGhXVjPi4lUv09inCMcNqy0_7sH-2stwGdS2OSEvs6HxmRsoT1s6yj2F3mzj9rMPNRQ) 
Simon, T.J., Hespos, S.J., &amp;amp; Rochat, P. (1995). Do Infants Understand Simple Arithmetic? A Replication of Wynn (1992). Cognitive Development, 10, 253-269. Link to paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/088520149590011X) 
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature. 358, 749-750. Link to paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/358749a0) 
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>infant math, cognitive development, methods</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>Candy and Deon begin this episode by discussing a recent email exchange between Jonathan Kominsky and Martin Packer about whether studies that use puppets are really testing young children&#39;s theory of mind rather than, for example, their &quot;theory of puppets.&quot; Spoiler: Candy is less optimistic that they are; Deon is much more optimistic that, at the very least, they are approaching the question in the right way . Candy and Deon then discuss a seminal paper by Wynn (1992) that examined 5-month-olds&#39; capacity to add and subtract small numbers. Specifically, they discuss whether the claim &quot;that infants are able to compute the precise results of simple additions and subtractions&quot; (Wynn, 1992, p. 749) is supported by the data. Candy and Deon discuss why they think that the claim is not supported by the data and then go on to discuss some mixed evidence for this claim from follow-up replication attempts. </p>

<p>Links </p>

<p>Cohen, L.B., &amp; Marks, K.S. (2002). How infants process addition and subtraction events. Developmental Science, 5(2), 186-201. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-7687.00220?casa_token=wuzQ1nJKEiAAAAAA:rnnXBlspfWDFGhXVjPi4lUv09inCMcNqy0_7sH-2stwGdS2OSEvs6HxmRsoT1s6yj2F3mzj9rMPNRQ" rel="nofollow">Link to paper</a> <br>
Simon, T.J., Hespos, S.J., &amp; Rochat, P. (1995). Do Infants Understand Simple Arithmetic? A Replication of Wynn (1992). Cognitive Development, 10, 253-269. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/088520149590011X" rel="nofollow">Link to paper</a> <br>
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature. 358, 749-750. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/358749a0" rel="nofollow">Link to paper</a></p>]]>
  </content:encoded>
  <itunes:summary>
    <![CDATA[<p>Candy and Deon begin this episode by discussing a recent email exchange between Jonathan Kominsky and Martin Packer about whether studies that use puppets are really testing young children&#39;s theory of mind rather than, for example, their &quot;theory of puppets.&quot; Spoiler: Candy is less optimistic that they are; Deon is much more optimistic that, at the very least, they are approaching the question in the right way . Candy and Deon then discuss a seminal paper by Wynn (1992) that examined 5-month-olds&#39; capacity to add and subtract small numbers. Specifically, they discuss whether the claim &quot;that infants are able to compute the precise results of simple additions and subtractions&quot; (Wynn, 1992, p. 749) is supported by the data. Candy and Deon discuss why they think that the claim is not supported by the data and then go on to discuss some mixed evidence for this claim from follow-up replication attempts. </p>

<p>Links </p>

<p>Cohen, L.B., &amp; Marks, K.S. (2002). How infants process addition and subtraction events. Developmental Science, 5(2), 186-201. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-7687.00220?casa_token=wuzQ1nJKEiAAAAAA:rnnXBlspfWDFGhXVjPi4lUv09inCMcNqy0_7sH-2stwGdS2OSEvs6HxmRsoT1s6yj2F3mzj9rMPNRQ" rel="nofollow">Link to paper</a> <br>
Simon, T.J., Hespos, S.J., &amp; Rochat, P. (1995). Do Infants Understand Simple Arithmetic? A Replication of Wynn (1992). Cognitive Development, 10, 253-269. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/088520149590011X" rel="nofollow">Link to paper</a> <br>
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature. 358, 749-750. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/358749a0" rel="nofollow">Link to paper</a></p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss>
