Kitty schreef:Hebben ze ook baby's laten kiezen tussen een triangel en vierkant die niet eerst het figuurtje gezien hadden? Dit om uit te sluiten of baby's niet gewoon een voorkeur hebben voor de vorm van een triangel t.o.v een vierkant.
Op deze vraag is nog geen antwoord, niet waar? In het persartikel staat klaar en duidelijk dat, volgens dit artikel, het NIET zo is.
Het figuurtje werd geholpen door een figuur in de vorm van een triangel en tegengewerkt door een figuur in de vorm van een vierkant.
Er staat niet dat ze dat ook omgedraaid hebben. Niemand heeft dit totnogtoe ook maar ergens kunnen lezen, blijkbaar...
Ook de connotatie "meewerken" - "tegenwerken" is zwak. Gaat het niet om competitie !? (Winnen) Dat is iets heel anders dan morele categorie vriendschap.
We krijgen ook geen scenario waarbij het figuurtje BERGAF WIL, en dan eraf wordt geduwd of er terug op.
Enz enz.
Kleine bloemlezing van critische reacties
Michelle
This article jumps to many conclusions that I don't conclude from this study. The babies don't necessarily have this intuition of bad people and good people hardwired, rather this study shows that babies learn from what they see. Adults are the same way, if they were shown a video of someone attacking an elderly lady, or one helping her, it would be obvious that most people would choose to hang out with the person that helped the old lady, based on their actions. This article is suggesting the babies know good people from bad people without seeing any of their actions previously.
Jon
Big leaps of logic used...who's to say if the babies didn't just find the triangular shape more interesting physically?
AA
I don't believe the experiment. The babies are just reacting to the shape of the wooden objects. Let them change the role of the wooden objects and let see how the babies react. If you paint the bad guy in a bright colors, babies will surely pick the bright color. The same goes with shapes for babies.
There should have been a reversal of the roles of the triangle and square. Perhaps there was an innate preference for the former?
Bill Q, Derby,
Preverbal Infants and Social Judgments
Soon to appear in Nature, as reported at CBC:
Babies can distinguish between people based on their actions toward a third party, U.S. researchers say.
"Infants prefer an individual who helps another to one who hinders another, prefer a helping individual to a neutral individual, and prefer a neutral individual to a hindering individual," the Yale University psychology researchers report in the edition of Nature to be published Thursday.
"The findings reported here constitute the first evidence that young infants' social preferences are influenced by others' behaviour towards unrelated third parties," they say. The findings show humans make social evaluations at a much younger age than previously thought."
The study was performed by the Yale Infant Cognition Center. You can see video of the "climber" used to display helpful or hindering action here. I always approach infant studies with a fair amount of skepticism. "Just what were they thinking?" isn't so easily answered as might be the question "Just what would I be thinking?" I haven't read the article yet, but, based on the video, I'm wondering whether the infants might not be reacting according to whether anticipated completion of a task/event initiated (starting to "climb" or roll up hill) is fulfilled or frustrated? Are blocks that successfully get to the top favored over those that start but fall back down (without any additional blocks)? What of blocks that begin with in the middle, as it were, without signaling a "goal" (just start climbing or descending)? I guess I need to know how the neutral figure was introduced.
In any case, was the infants' "judgment" based on concepts from psychology (blocks with eyes!), sociology (eye-laden blocks that interact!) or physics (patterns of block motion)? What if the blocks had no eyes?
Even babies make social judgments, study suggests | CBC
Social evaluation by preverbal infants. J. Kiley Hamlin, Karen Wynn & Paul Bloom. Nature 450, 557-559 (22 November 2007)
h/t to 3QD.
Nick Fitzkee
I wasn't able to find a more basic control described in the paper: did they switch character roles, or was the hinder-er always the same color/shape? Without that, all they've shown is that infants prefer yellow triangles over blue squares.
November 26, 2007 @ 11:49AM
Mister E. Meat
I fail to see how this study
quote:
support[s] the view that our ability to evaluate people is a biological adaptation—universal and unlearned.
A six month old baby has already learned many behaviors. By that age a child has already learned how to sit up, find objects that are "hidden" while they watch and many other skills. Why do the authors assume that by six months babies haven't already learned that one should gravitate toward those that help you in your goals (feeding, new diapers, etc.) and avoid those that don't.
November 26, 2007 @ 11:50AM
The Real Blastdoor
quote:
Originally posted by Pse:
quote:
Nick Fitzkee said:
I wasn't able to find a more basic control described in the paper: did they switch character roles, or was the hinder-er always the same color/shape? Without that, all they've shown is that infants prefer yellow triangles over blue squares.
Are you saying liking triangles or yellow objects is a biological trait?
I believe he is saying that the authors may have designed their study in such a way as to confound the factor of interest to them with another factor which they could have controlled for but did not.
November 26, 2007 @ 08:51PM
