What We Can Learn From Babies

What We Can Learn From Babies

Taking a lesson from the world's youngest thinkers.

"The Moral Life of Babies" by Paul Bloom. Published May 3, 2010 in The New York Times Magazine.

 The Discovery

• Babies and young children originally thought to have extremely limited mental capabilities, let alone any preexisting knowledge.
• Scientists only recently discovered a way to study how babies are thinking: monitor their eye movement.

Babies' eyes widen, and they tend to look at something longer, when they:

1. see something interesting
2. watch some thing exciting or unexpected
3. find something pleasing to look at                               

The Evidence

"Naive Physics"

Babies are born with a sense of how physical objects interact with the environment--"naive physics."  Studies show that they look at objects for longer than usual if they seem to violate physical laws, meaning they are surprised by what they see and treat it as something unexpected. This demonstrates that babies have certain preconceived expectations about how objects should act.

Example scenarios:

• Blocks floating in midair                                                                            
• objects disappearing from one spot and reappearing in another

Occluded Objects--> concept of human brain filling in missing pieces.

Image Source

"Naive Mathematics"

Physics isn't the only subject babies are born knowing--other studies show that babies have a rough sense of mathematics as well.  If you show a baby two dolls being placed behind a screen, then drop the screen to reveal only one doll, the baby will look at the scene for longer.

"Naive Psychology"

But their knowledge doesn't stop there, either! Babies' sense of "naive psychology" explains their imitation of human faces as well as their reaction to different facial expressions and movements.  They treat inanimate objects differently than human beings, and become distressed if a person's face stops moving.

"Naive Morality?"

• Babies and toddlers have shown that they do have some rudimentary sense of right and wrong, of good and bad. (Example: puppet study)
• They respond to social interactions where there is a "good guy" and "bad guy," always preferring to reach for the "good guy" and occasionally whack the "bad guy" on the head.
• They prefer puppets who are nice to the "good guy" puppets and vice versa. (ie. They like anyone who rewards good actions and chastises bad ones)

So, if babies aren't the blank slates we originally thought, "...why is it that we have to work so hard to humanize them?"

Paul Bloom writes:

"Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone. Which is not to say that parents are wrong to concern themselves with moral development or that their interactions with their children are a waste of time. Socialization is critically important. But this is not because babies and young children lack a sense of right and wrong; it’s because the sense of right and wrong that they naturally possess diverges in important ways from what we adults would want it to be."

What it means for education:

We can't treat students like empty slates, because they are anything but.  Educators should acknowledge that students, even young ones, come to class with some knowledge and should embrace students' individual contributions to conversation.

The Questions

(Baby) Food for Thought:

• Why is morality an evolutionary adaptation?

• What does it mean to be "human?"

• Is it safe to say that this "naive morality" is common to all human beings, and can thus act as an equalizer in the classroom setting?

• At what point does personal experience/cultural background vastly change this inherent sense of right and wrong?  At what age does this happen?

• How exactly do adults want this sense of morality to form?