Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 21 November 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2007.278
News
Babies can spot nice and nasty characters
Infants as young as six months instinctively prefer helpful characters.
You might scoff at doting parents who proudly tell you that their youngster, even though still in diapers, takes an instant liking to kind-hearted people and shows disdain for less savoury characters. But a new experiment shows that such claims could be more than parental pride.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This seems like a continuation of the work of Jean Piaget. All the babies I've ever spent time with certainly could do these things, and if encouraged to trust their intuitive capability, babies mature into emotionally intelligent children and adults.
Piaget? Nuts. Piaget would have put this subtle reasoning in a much further advanced developmental stage. This is pure Skinnerian behaviorism with some additions. The triangle is reinforcing to the circle while the square is punishing. The babies transfer this to themselves and so select the reinforcing continguency. (It is amazing how constructivists want to credit Piaget with everything from discovering fire and the wheel to perforated toilet paper.)
What if babies simply preferred the colour of the "helper" puppet? Or it's shape? I presume a control test was done with some babies which had NOT seen the video or Nature probably wouldn't have published this story.
Maybe scientists ought to look closer at what the Bible says about Man. We are born with a moral conscious and this study certainly aludes to that. It is interesting that the more we learn, the more we find out that the Bible is true. Perhaps "science" should be re-defined as the search for truth wherever it takes us instead of limiting it to just "natural" causes. Just look at the DNA and the incredible information contained in it- we know that information comes from an intelligent source. It is time to stop the atheistic tendencies and open our eyes to the truth! This research just adds one more reason to do so. David
hmmm, what about the whole 6000 years old thing, the inaccurate measurement of pi, woman coming from the mans rib, the fact that it states we are in "dominion" over all life forms ( what about AIDS, heck, all microbes for that matter...), Didn't Herod die like 4 years before supposedly making all that biblical hubub?.. etc etc etc... Have you read the OT? Um, also, what exactly does "supernatural" mean anyways? I always tend to get the idea that it's just the negative of whatever a religiose person gets confronted with...like the relativly simple evolutionary explanation for this rather charming behavior....hehe, pardon the unprofessional and snide tone, just felt like venting a bit ;)
Of course babies are smart.They are learning all the time, they have to. Of course they would be drawn to a helper and not a hinderer. How long would they survive if this was not so?
Another important control should be (maybe they did it) that the babies watch the show without being in contact with their parents. What if they just felt their parents' reaction?
"After the show, the babies were encouraged to reach out for either the helper or the hinderer puppet. Almost all favoured the helper..." What happened with babys who chose the hinderer (the evil one)? Are they potential bad guys?
* I thought this observation is accurate: "Of course babies are smart. They are learning all the time, they have to. Of course they would be drawn to a helper and not a hinderer. How long would they survive if this was not so?" * And, it needed to be interpreted neurologically, as learning is a progressive process in which positive feedbacks in neurochemistry and circuitry would be greatly enhanced (or rewarded) by a "helper" anticipation or "positive" cognition. * Whereas conversely, "What happened with babies who chose the hinderer (the evil one)? Are they potential bad guys?" * No, they probably could indicate or imply some faulty (or "negative") neurological processes (or feedbacks) in their cognitive development, which may potentially include autism, dyslexia, etc. Thank you all!
I am not a neuroscientist, only a stem cells resercher, however, i am very interested in the field. I believe reading that the actions that were previously regarded as "moral", such as prefering, thinking, appreciating,... are now being decifered and regarded as serotonin, GABA, noradrenalin-triggered electrical impulsed to and from specific brain areas. I see the findings of this study as part of these chemico-electrical impulses that occur into, not only us humans but other species, and such impulses develop as early as the nervous system starts to respond even in the whomb. I believe the real distinguishing key between me-Homosapian and other nervous system bearing creatures in the ability to chose the yellow triangle even if i prefer the red circle but leaving it to somebody else who also prefers it, to chose to give forward a sandwich despite being hungry and to chose to forgive despite my hurts.