PDA

View Full Version : OT-Yale Research: Babies Know Difference Between Good and Evil at 6 mo.


epicSocialism4tw
05-09-2010, 09:08 PM
Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life.

'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life.
'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html

UberBroncoMan
05-09-2010, 09:19 PM
Maybe we'll find a way to root out the evil babies and eliminate them! Damn evil babies... they always seem to grow up and become so damn evilerer.

epicSocialism4tw
05-09-2010, 09:28 PM
Maybe we'll find a way to root out the evil babies and eliminate them! Damn evil babies... they always seem to grow up and become so damn evilerer.

Dr. Evil?

2KBack
05-09-2010, 09:31 PM
Maybe we'll find a way to root out the evil babies and eliminate them! Damn evil babies... they always seem to grow up and become so damn evilerer.

perhaps they could be quarantined in some way.

Though perhaps having that many evil babies in one place is asking for trouble.

bowtown
05-09-2010, 09:37 PM
http://pure-essence.net/stuff/ICHC/funny-pictures-good-evil-cats.jpg

Ahhh studies... they are all so conclusive.

orangeatheist
05-10-2010, 07:22 AM
Hmmmm, interesting. And every single one of those babies are atheists. What does that tell you?

Man-Goblin
05-10-2010, 07:27 AM
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/josh%20mcdevil%20image.jpg

Rohirrim
05-10-2010, 08:45 AM
But, according to psychologists...

Stopped right there. As far as science goes, psychology is right up there with astrology.

TailgateNut
05-10-2010, 08:48 AM
Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life.

'With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life.
'Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html


:spit:

So when you're changing their diaper and they piss on you, they know they are being bad?

:spit:

What a ****ing joke!

Smiling Assassin27
05-10-2010, 09:01 AM
Hmmmm, interesting. And every single one of those babies are atheists. What does that tell you?

Is that a scientific reality you're proposing for belief, or just wishful thinking? Hilarious!

Despite not being apparent, it's quite possible that the rudimentary knowledge of--and belief in--God is already there. The habit of the principles of moral action begins in a rudimentary way very early on. 'Do good and avoid evil' falls into the mind very readily (even if without knowing those words) based on the nature of reality. But it is only the most basic principles that one cannot be mistaken about. Conscience, the application of judgment to this action, is something only obtained by use and, therefore, can go awry. It is not as if we are all created with knowledge of the natural law. We are created with intellects that work upon our sensory world and so the moral quality of action falls into our understanding more or less, depending on our virtue.
If babies already had true use of conscience, then they are not innocent beings but capable of sin. But they can be habituated by direction from others so that when they do obtain the use of reason they already have habits of actions that train their conscience. But to claim they're atheist at birth is a huge leap of presumption, IMO.

55CrushEm
05-10-2010, 09:19 AM
Dr. Evil?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3J6iKRn7Sj0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3J6iKRn7Sj0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Popcorn Sutton
05-10-2010, 09:21 AM
Is that a scientific reality you're proposing for belief, or just wishful thinking? Hilarious!

Despite not being apparent, it's quite possible that the rudimentary knowledge of--and belief in--God is already there. The habit of the principles of moral action begins in a rudimentary way very early on. 'Do good and avoid evil' falls into the mind very readily (even if without knowing those words) based on the nature of reality. But it is only the most basic principles that one cannot be mistaken about. Conscience, the application of judgment to this action, is something only obtained by use and, therefore, can go awry. It is not as if we are all created with knowledge of the natural law. We are created with intellects that work upon our sensory world and so the moral quality of action falls into our understanding more or less, depending on our virtue.
If babies already had true use of conscience, then they are not innocent beings but capable of sin. But they can be habituated by direction from others so that when they do obtain the use of reason they already have habits of actions that train their conscience. But to claim they're atheist at birth is a huge leap of presumption, IMO.

I agree. It's as much a leap to say they are atheist is it is to say they believe in God. It's almost laughable. Like there is some sort of innate ability to decipher between all the thousands of religions and Gods in the world at 6 months of age.

OABB
05-10-2010, 09:53 AM
How can babies tell good and evil when most adults can't?

RMT
05-10-2010, 09:58 AM
i must be an exception - i married evil women twice; finally learned my lesson at age 38

bowtown
05-10-2010, 10:04 AM
How can babies tell good and evil when most adults can't?

Becasue babies have not yet been exposed and warped by organized religion. Thier sense of morality is still raw and pure.

listopencil
05-10-2010, 10:45 AM
But, according to psychologists...

Stopped right there. As far as science goes, psychology is right up there with astrology.

Nah. It's not Psychology itself that is bull****, it's the ignorant interpretation of the data the lends to so much bull****. You can see it in this thread. The article is not about "good" or "evil" babies at all, it is about a child's attachment to entities that it perceives to be "good", or helpful. Here's the thing: It's not hard to observe behavior and get a general sense that the person engaged in that behavior is doing "good" or "evil". This study just seems to show that it is so simple that even babies can do it. Within the text of the article a few points are mentioned. The observer may not have a full understanding of the situation, such as when a mother is impeding a child from dangerous activity for instance. Forming that impediment may be seen as an "evil" act by the child but with a fuller understanding of the situation most objective observers are inclined to see the mother's actions as "good".

What I immediately question is the validity of the results because they appear to be so subjective. Babies react primarily to subtle cues. Facial expression, body language, tone of voice- all the non verbal forms of communication that it relies on. If the "actors" performing the roles of the inanimate objects in the experiment were displaying any non verbal cues at all it is very likely that the babies were reacting to those rather than a perception of "good" or "evil".

epicSocialism4tw
05-10-2010, 01:12 PM
But, according to psychologists...

Stopped right there. As far as science goes, psychology is right up there with astrology.

Ha!

I think you may be giving it too much credit.

Tombstone RJ
05-10-2010, 01:45 PM
Surely this puts a damper on the idea that good and evil are just matters of opinion. The biggest harm to civilization is that morality is subjective. It isn't. However, you'll have plenty of humanities teachers thoughout our country tacitly teaching this belief.

bowtown
05-10-2010, 02:19 PM
Surely this puts a damper on the idea that good and evil are just matters of opinion. The biggest harm to civilization is that morality is subjective. It isn't. However, you'll have plenty of humanities teachers thoughout our country tacitly teaching this belief.

It doesn't damper it at all. Maybe I missed in the study where they looked at what happened when the babies grew up and had societal and cultural conventions and influences placed on them. This study proves nothing, especially that adult human morality is an objectively black and white proposition. THAT thinking is the biggest harm to civilization.

Haroldthebarrel
05-10-2010, 02:19 PM
Is that a scientific reality you're proposing for belief, or just wishful thinking? Hilarious!

Despite not being apparent, it's quite possible that the rudimentary knowledge of--and belief in--God is already there. The habit of the principles of moral action begins in a rudimentary way very early on. 'Do good and avoid evil' falls into the mind very readily (even if without knowing those words) based on the nature of reality. But it is only the most basic principles that one cannot be mistaken about. Conscience, the application of judgment to this action, is something only obtained by use and, therefore, can go awry. It is not as if we are all created with knowledge of the natural law. We are created with intellects that work upon our sensory world and so the moral quality of action falls into our understanding more or less, depending on our virtue.
If babies already had true use of conscience, then they are not innocent beings but capable of sin. But they can be habituated by direction from others so that when they do obtain the use of reason they already have habits of actions that train their conscience. But to claim they're atheist at birth is a huge leap of presumption, IMO.

isnt it also quite a leap to discover that babies know good from bad to say they know good from evil?

bowtown
05-10-2010, 02:21 PM
isnt it also quite a leap to discover that babies know good from bad to say they know good from evil?

Yes, and an even bigger leap to claim that they may have a "rudimentary knowledge of--and belief in--God"

Tombstone RJ
05-10-2010, 02:26 PM
It doesn't damper it at all. Maybe I missed in the study where they looked at what happened when the babies grew up and had societal and cultural conventions and influences placed on them. This study proves nothing, especially that adult human morality is an objectively black and white proposition. THAT thinking is the biggest harm to civilization.

Spoken like a true progressive liberal. Now, if this study at Yale had said just the opposit, ie there is no indication that good and evil is innate, then that would be ok because morality is not divine, hence there is no God, there is no creation. Everything evolved and morality is simply a man made myth.

I see you. I see who you are.

Haroldthebarrel
05-10-2010, 02:31 PM
Yes, and an even bigger leap to claim that they may have a "rudimentary knowledge of--and belief in--God"

Yes. Such leaps of faith isnt it?:=)

watermock
05-10-2010, 02:39 PM
How amusing.

Skull and Bones must of missed that study.

epicSocialism4tw
05-10-2010, 02:44 PM
It doesn't damper it at all. Maybe I missed in the study where they looked at what happened when the babies grew up and had societal and cultural conventions and influences placed on them. This study proves nothing, especially that adult human morality is an objectively black and white proposition. THAT thinking is the biggest harm to civilization.

It is what it is.

Its a study of an infant's reaction to events.

No need to go outside of the bounds of the experiment to find a way to impose moral relativism on the thing.

Vegas_Bronco
05-10-2010, 02:51 PM
Thanks for posting this. Good stuff.

One of my fav verses explains the reasoning behind this. Once we all get the idea that God is the true scientist who acts very reasonably, life in general, gets a little easier to explain:

"Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them...

"But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

"Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

"Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

"For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism"(Moroni 8:8,12-15 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8/8,12-15#8)).