Posted on 11/21/2007 11:08:38 AM PST by Aristotelian
WASHINGTON - Even infants can tell the difference between naughty and nice playmates, and know which to choose, a new study finds.
Babies as young as 6 to 10 months old showed crucial social judging skills before they could talk, according to a study by researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center published in Thursday's journal Nature.
The infants watched a googly-eyed wooden toy trying to climb roller-coaster hills and then another googly-eyed toy come by and either help it over the mountain or push it backward. They then were presented with the toys to see which they would play with.
Nearly every baby picked the helpful toy over the bad one.
The babies also chose neutral toys — ones that didn't help or hinder — over the naughty ones. And the babies chose the helping toys over the neutral ones.
"It's incredibly impressive that babies can do this," said study lead author Kiley Hamlin, a Yale psychology researcher. "It shows that we have these essential social skills occurring without much explicit teaching."
There was no difference in reaction between the boys and girls
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
You’re not doing the analytical powers of your namesake proud...
Really? This study doesn’t say what you want it to say here - it looks like the baby is choosing the toy that is least likely to push him back down the slide. Totally in harmony with self interest.
Bwahahahaha LOL!!
Where do you get that from? If you have two villages of primative humans: one is social and help each other while the other village steal from each other and destroy their work, which is more likely to survive and pass on their genes? One bastard in the nice village might get a boost, but if you have too many the total chance of surviving and passing on their genes is greatly reduced.
STRAW MAN
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
EXAMPLE: "This type of behavior is at odds with the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fitest (sic). The evolutionists would have us believe that "every man for himself" is the guiding principle of human self-interest"
“googly-eyed wooden toy trying to climb roller-coaster hills”
How does the baby know that the wooden toy is trying to climb the hill? For all the baby knows the toy could have been helplessly caught in an anti-gravity vortex, and was only saved by the helpful toy pushing it back down the hill.
That was the pic I was thinking of right away!
That was my first thought, too, but consider that if survival is the sole criteria, an argument could be made that individuals would choose as a companion the “tough” person who is willing to fight, both in order to be protected and in order to avoid getting harmed by the tough person.
The study undercuts one of the central premises of Singer’s “Animal Liberation,” that babies should have no rights above animals because babies have no ability to make judgments.
Animals know right from wrong. They know when they are encroaching on your space and taking YOUR food. Whether it is a dog begging for a handout or a bird trying to steal a bit of lunch off your plate.
And animals seek revenge. Attack the young of one species and expect the pack to possibly come after you even once the young animal is safe.
Funny you should bring this up. I could be wrong, but in essence are not Evolutionists typically left leaning. If not then my premise is all wrong. I have not met an Evolutionist who is right leaning so I have this to posit.
Survival of the fittest is basically a tenet of republicanism. By this I mean, we are given the opportunity to excel by ourselves without infringement. Opportunity knocks and we either take it or don’t. My question is this. Does anyone find the relationship between liberlism and Evolution a strange dichontomy of philosohpy.
There's another study showing that they prefer attractive people over unattractive ones.
The test I would like to see is which would the baby perfer to listen to, Rush or Alan Colmes.
That’s questionable. The animal fears getting harmed by you, know doubt, but that is a far cry from “knowing right from wrong.”
I would be tentative, too, if I had to take meat from a bear and her cubs in order to feed my family ... doesn’t mean I would think it “wrong” to take the meat.
Perhaps some dicersity training for infants is required?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.