Wasn't it also because it lets them breathe?

Also a little bit yes. Babies are not born with fluid in their lungs. Their lungs are flat like deflated balloons and the first breath inflates the lungs.
This is also probably a little bit shocking to them.

Good point :)

I saw your comment with negative thumbs, I read it and agree it does make sense, so have my thumb

Ps I think the red thumbs are for the usage of a kind of provoking reaction image, it would have been better to use a "consider the following" picture.

Thanks :) and thanks for the tip, but the problem is that this is actually kinda accepted as a general truth :/ (They even taught me this when I was still in school)
Not some theory I just whipped up in 5 sec.
That's why I choose that picture. But I'll keep it in mind for the future :)

Haha ^^
So everybody wins, right? :)

Basically.

However my views were that a baby cries to achieve something, much like a falcon returning to a falconer, so the baby gets accustomed to crying to the point were
crying = food, much like a dog barking, which would explain why the more spoiled children cry when they can't get what they want. But unlike your theory which you put up mine was made in weeks after thinking about it.

Ah yes you see that has Pavlov's conditioned stimulus written all over it.

You see when a baby is born it cries for the reason I explained above, but after that the conditioning appears. The baby can only do 1 thing to get it's mothers attention so that she knows it needs something, and that's by crying.
After doing that a while the baby becomes aware that when it starts to cry that it can gain something from it.
So it goes: I want something => I cry => I get it
Just like in Pavlov's experiment with the dogs:
The bell rings => Dog thinks he will get food => he starts to produce saliva

That's conditioning, you have a trigger that stimulates a certain preferred response. It can only occur after a while and after the baby is more concious about what happens in his surroundings.

Interesting, but I have never heard of him, I prefer freud which I was connecting to with the idea that the ID of the young babies minds being the only thing that has developed on a physiological level is cry as well to eat. However I will look into the other man you have talked about.

I just psychology interesting on certain level you know, why do we do as we do type of thing.

Ah yes you should :) he did most of his test on animals though (not deadly or very painful ones but I thought I should at least mention it)

Yeah Freud is very well-known (normally Pavlov too, but that doesn't matter :p), but I think some of his theories are a bit weird. xD

True, but if you look at the time period and what he had to work with, It seems logical, also funny fact he worked with women going through menopause cause back then they were considered crazy:), but he must have done something right, I find his ideas rather interesting, however the most interesting out it all is the super ego which is not natural at all, it just makes you think about it, do you get what I am saying.

Yeah, he didn't have a lot to work with that's true.
And of course he did stuff right, he became famous after all ;)
And yes I get what you are saying, and I believe you sometimes need to think about stuff like this. You can learn a lot about yourself.

First off would like to say it has been pleasure to meet you sir, this has been one of the best times I have had on funnyjunk in a long time, I love discussing stuff to people who might know more then me then of course I gain slightly better understanding of the topic.

Second I am off to go take a regents now, have fun and stay gold.

Thanks :) I had a great time as well

Until we meet again, young warrior!