Scan barcode
11corvus11's review
3.0
This book is difficult to rate and review. I found it incredibly interesting, very accessible, and also flawed in many ways. I read a lot of radical literature so when I move over to science on occasion, I notice many things. unsurprisingly from a field dominated by white straight men.
What I enjoyed were the writing style being accessible and not trying to show off with academic language most people don't understand, the many studies and discussions of morality, and even the author sharing how his own theories differed from other researchers' even when I disagreed. These alone made the book an easy an fast read.
There were many things I struggled with as well. There is a lot of discussion of violence towards nonhuman animals in this, including in animal research where they are harmed to study "empathy" without any discussion of the empathy and compassion one must lack in order to put animals through this in research. There are also many incorrect assumptions about nonhuman animals (macaques never imitate each other, other animals don't show compassion, etc) that are shown to be untrue (and are obvious to people who show empathy, understanding, and compassion towards other animals even outside of studies.) It is full of anthropocentric conclusions drawn from animal research that demean animals complete with a few shots at people who believe in animal rights missing out on veal and somehow even hurting humans by saying we shouldn't harm animals, comparing it ignorantly to abortion.
He also makes many statements centered in white male experience. He highlights many studies claiming distinct biological differences in the brains of men and women, something repeatedly shown to be inaccurate in better studies. He makes claims like- nobody cared about racism until recently. What he means is slavery and genocide were more publicly accepted by white colonizers in the past than they are now. Pretty sure black folks and native folks cared about racism forever. He will say hunter gatherer societies (now shown to be scavenger gatherer) were egalitarian. Then as a side note will mention women were oppressed. Sorry dude, that's not egalitarian. You can say more egalitarian amongst men or something. There are more things like this.
This is odd because the book brings great attention to racial bias, in/out group struggles, and moral developments in different cultures. He does this rather well at times but in the end, defaults back to centering his own experience. I can't completely blame him since he's probably never been told to do otherwise. But, I'd like to see this written with more attention to diversity in more places than inside a laboratory.
What I enjoyed were the writing style being accessible and not trying to show off with academic language most people don't understand, the many studies and discussions of morality, and even the author sharing how his own theories differed from other researchers' even when I disagreed. These alone made the book an easy an fast read.
There were many things I struggled with as well. There is a lot of discussion of violence towards nonhuman animals in this, including in animal research where they are harmed to study "empathy" without any discussion of the empathy and compassion one must lack in order to put animals through this in research. There are also many incorrect assumptions about nonhuman animals (macaques never imitate each other, other animals don't show compassion, etc) that are shown to be untrue (and are obvious to people who show empathy, understanding, and compassion towards other animals even outside of studies.) It is full of anthropocentric conclusions drawn from animal research that demean animals complete with a few shots at people who believe in animal rights missing out on veal and somehow even hurting humans by saying we shouldn't harm animals, comparing it ignorantly to abortion.
He also makes many statements centered in white male experience. He highlights many studies claiming distinct biological differences in the brains of men and women, something repeatedly shown to be inaccurate in better studies. He makes claims like- nobody cared about racism until recently. What he means is slavery and genocide were more publicly accepted by white colonizers in the past than they are now. Pretty sure black folks and native folks cared about racism forever. He will say hunter gatherer societies (now shown to be scavenger gatherer) were egalitarian. Then as a side note will mention women were oppressed. Sorry dude, that's not egalitarian. You can say more egalitarian amongst men or something. There are more things like this.
This is odd because the book brings great attention to racial bias, in/out group struggles, and moral developments in different cultures. He does this rather well at times but in the end, defaults back to centering his own experience. I can't completely blame him since he's probably never been told to do otherwise. But, I'd like to see this written with more attention to diversity in more places than inside a laboratory.
mahir007's review
5.0
أخلاق بيولوجية
.
.
قرر الطفل البالغ من العمر عامًا واحدًا تحقيق العدالة بيديه. كان قد شاهد للتو عرضًا للدمى المتحركة من ثلاث شخصيات. الدمية التي في المنتصف دحرجت كرة إلى الدمية التي على اليمين ، التي أعادتها إليها مباشرة. ثم دحرجت الكرة إلى الدمية اليسرى التي هربت معها. في نهاية العرض ، تم إنزال الدمية "اللطيفة" والدمية "الشقية" من المسرح وتم وضعهما أمام الصبي. تم وضع قطعة حلوى أمام كل منهما ، ودعي الصبي لأخذ واحدة من قطع الحلوى. كما كان متوقعا ، ومثل معظم الأطفال الصغار في هذه التجربة ، أخذه من "الشقي" - الشخص الذي هرب بالكرة. لكن هذا لم يكن كافيا. انحنى الصبي وضرب رأس هذه الدمية.
إن تجارب مثل هذه تظهر أن بعض جوانب الأخلاق تأتي بشكل طبيعي إلينا - والبعض الآخر ليس كذلك. لدينا حس أخلاقي يمكّننا من الحكم على الآخرين ويوجه تعاطفنا وإدانتنا. نحن بطبيعة الحال لطفاء مع الآخرين ، على الأقل في بعض الأوقات. لكننا نمتلك أيضًا غرائز قبيحة ، ويمكن أن تتحول إلى شر. لم يكن القس توماس مارتن مخطئًا تمامًا عندما كتب في القرن التاسع عشر عن "الفساد المحلي" للأطفال وخلص إلى "أننا نحضر معنا إلى العالم طبيعة مليئة بالميول الشريرة".
حتى إذا كانت بعض الأخلاق تتواجد لدينا بشكل طبيعي ، فإن العديد من السمات الطبيعية لا تظهر على الفور - فكر في النمش وأسنان الحكمة وشعر الإبط. يستغرق الدماغ ، مثل بقية الجسم ، وقتًا لينمو ، لذلك أنا لا أجادل في أن الأخلاق موجودة عند الولادة. لكن ما أقترحه هو أن بعض الأسس الأخلاقية لا يتم اكتسابها من خلال التعلم. لا تأتي من الأم أو من المدرسة أو الكنيسة ؛ هم بدلاً من ذلك نتاج التطور البيولوجي.
.
Paul Bloom
Just Babies: The Origin Of Good And Evil
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
.
قرر الطفل البالغ من العمر عامًا واحدًا تحقيق العدالة بيديه. كان قد شاهد للتو عرضًا للدمى المتحركة من ثلاث شخصيات. الدمية التي في المنتصف دحرجت كرة إلى الدمية التي على اليمين ، التي أعادتها إليها مباشرة. ثم دحرجت الكرة إلى الدمية اليسرى التي هربت معها. في نهاية العرض ، تم إنزال الدمية "اللطيفة" والدمية "الشقية" من المسرح وتم وضعهما أمام الصبي. تم وضع قطعة حلوى أمام كل منهما ، ودعي الصبي لأخذ واحدة من قطع الحلوى. كما كان متوقعا ، ومثل معظم الأطفال الصغار في هذه التجربة ، أخذه من "الشقي" - الشخص الذي هرب بالكرة. لكن هذا لم يكن كافيا. انحنى الصبي وضرب رأس هذه الدمية.
إن تجارب مثل هذه تظهر أن بعض جوانب الأخلاق تأتي بشكل طبيعي إلينا - والبعض الآخر ليس كذلك. لدينا حس أخلاقي يمكّننا من الحكم على الآخرين ويوجه تعاطفنا وإدانتنا. نحن بطبيعة الحال لطفاء مع الآخرين ، على الأقل في بعض الأوقات. لكننا نمتلك أيضًا غرائز قبيحة ، ويمكن أن تتحول إلى شر. لم يكن القس توماس مارتن مخطئًا تمامًا عندما كتب في القرن التاسع عشر عن "الفساد المحلي" للأطفال وخلص إلى "أننا نحضر معنا إلى العالم طبيعة مليئة بالميول الشريرة".
حتى إذا كانت بعض الأخلاق تتواجد لدينا بشكل طبيعي ، فإن العديد من السمات الطبيعية لا تظهر على الفور - فكر في النمش وأسنان الحكمة وشعر الإبط. يستغرق الدماغ ، مثل بقية الجسم ، وقتًا لينمو ، لذلك أنا لا أجادل في أن الأخلاق موجودة عند الولادة. لكن ما أقترحه هو أن بعض الأسس الأخلاقية لا يتم اكتسابها من خلال التعلم. لا تأتي من الأم أو من المدرسة أو الكنيسة ؛ هم بدلاً من ذلك نتاج التطور البيولوجي.
.
Paul Bloom
Just Babies: The Origin Of Good And Evil
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
cari1268's review
3.0
There was some interesting information, but I found the writing to be less than engaging and the author and his views grated on me at times.
2.5 Stars.
2.5 Stars.
cathyatratedreads's review
3.0
I'd give this a solid 3.5 stars but not sure if I liked it so much as a 4. Interesting, but somehow not exactly what I was expecting. Bloom discusses lots of psychological studies involving babies and children and how they reveal (as well as possible) what inherent morality babies come with. But somehow it didn't really tell me much about "the origins of good and evil." For anyone who enjoys psychology and philosophy, morality and ethics, this is an interesting read that's written for the layman.
Read my full review, including a rating for content, at RatedReads.com: https://ratedreads.com/just-babies-origins-good-evil-nonfiction-book-review/
Read my full review, including a rating for content, at RatedReads.com: https://ratedreads.com/just-babies-origins-good-evil-nonfiction-book-review/
arnizach's review
5.0
This book explores the psychology of babies and little children to see where the faculties we employ as moral beings come from. Everything from empathy and compassion, racism and homophobia, disgust and higher moral reasoning is analysed with reference to psychological research. The author highlights fascinating findings that show some of the primitive and not so primitive faculties and biases we are born with, faculties and biases that go on to play critical parts in our moral feelings and thoughts as we mature. The title can be a little misleading, since the book doesn't discuss good and evil as such. It discusses moral psychology, not moral ontology. How we feel about about and think about morality, not whether or how things are morally right or wrong. Nothing wrong with that, though. It's a fascinating book. I especially liked the final chapter and its defence of reason. Really good book!
smashingreads's review
1.0
BLUF: Pass on this. This book discusses morality, but will not bring you much insight into the origins of good and evil, as the title suggests.
When you title a book ‰ЫПJust Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil‰Ыќ, your readers expect you to primarily talk about babies, goodness, and evil. Pretty straightforward, right? Not in this case. This book spent the majority of its content on goodness, about third of its content on babies, and very little content, if any, on evilness.
Essentially, this book is on morality. But isn‰ЫЄt morality good versus evil? No, not really. Morality regards right and wrong, specifically in relation to one‰ЫЄs cultures.
As for babies and morality, this book does focus on a number of studies, which found that small children prefer characters that assist or are positive towards others over characters that cause detriment or are otherwise neutral to the situation. It also found that babies are more likely to share with a familiar face than an unfamiliar one, if you want to freak out a baby, just act frozen, and ‰ЫПno baby is an island‰Ыќ. Of course, these last concepts don‰ЫЄt attribute to the purpose of the book.
That‰ЫЄs about it for the babies in this book. No joke.
An interesting thing mentioned in this book about children is that children (when making friends or choosing who to talk to) are more likely to be drawn to a person of their own race over the race of another. At the same time, children are more likely to be drawn to a person with the same accent (regardless of race) over a child of the same race but a foreign accent. This was tied into morality through discussion of how people treat/mistreat others, i.e. racism, sexism, etc. The idea being that we prefer what is familiar and the best way to make unfamiliar cultures become familiar is through personal contact and stories. Personally, I don‰ЫЄt see a strong connection between morality and this information, but I do find it interesting.
The other main discussion involving children was shown to apply to both children and adults: we become bothered when we are rewarded less than those around us. As with above, I fail to see the point that relates it to the book. Again, it‰ЫЄs not about babies, not about good, and not about evil. Hmm..
Let‰ЫЄs sum up the book with one of its‰ЫЄ parting ideas:
For having this idea (perhaps truth) about human interest, the author spends a lot of his time sharing information that one forms from common sense or is not really relevant to his books‰ЫЄ concept. This causes the book to fall in the ‰ЫПobvious‰Ыќ and ‰ЫПuninteresting‰Ыќ category listed above.
---
Warning, this is a rant: The book provided ideas like this: ‰ЫПScientist X believes in Theory Y. Theory Y is [explanation]. Most people in the field today don‰ЫЄt agree‰Ыќ. If this happened once, I wouldn‰ЫЄt be whining to you right now. It was so frustrating to listen to theories that made sense, but resulted in the author sharing that he doesn‰ЫЄt believe they are relevant for some reason or another.
When you title a book ‰ЫПJust Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil‰Ыќ, your readers expect you to primarily talk about babies, goodness, and evil. Pretty straightforward, right? Not in this case. This book spent the majority of its content on goodness, about third of its content on babies, and very little content, if any, on evilness.
Essentially, this book is on morality. But isn‰ЫЄt morality good versus evil? No, not really. Morality regards right and wrong, specifically in relation to one‰ЫЄs cultures.
As for babies and morality, this book does focus on a number of studies, which found that small children prefer characters that assist or are positive towards others over characters that cause detriment or are otherwise neutral to the situation. It also found that babies are more likely to share with a familiar face than an unfamiliar one, if you want to freak out a baby, just act frozen, and ‰ЫПno baby is an island‰Ыќ. Of course, these last concepts don‰ЫЄt attribute to the purpose of the book.
That‰ЫЄs about it for the babies in this book. No joke.
An interesting thing mentioned in this book about children is that children (when making friends or choosing who to talk to) are more likely to be drawn to a person of their own race over the race of another. At the same time, children are more likely to be drawn to a person with the same accent (regardless of race) over a child of the same race but a foreign accent. This was tied into morality through discussion of how people treat/mistreat others, i.e. racism, sexism, etc. The idea being that we prefer what is familiar and the best way to make unfamiliar cultures become familiar is through personal contact and stories. Personally, I don‰ЫЄt see a strong connection between morality and this information, but I do find it interesting.
The other main discussion involving children was shown to apply to both children and adults: we become bothered when we are rewarded less than those around us. As with above, I fail to see the point that relates it to the book. Again, it‰ЫЄs not about babies, not about good, and not about evil. Hmm..
Let‰ЫЄs sum up the book with one of its‰ЫЄ parting ideas:
‰ЫПMoral deliberation is ubiquitous, but psychologist typically overlook it. This is, in part, because everybody loves counterintuitive findings. Discovering that individuals have moral intuitions that they struggle to explain is exciting and can get published in a top journal. Discovering that individuals have moral intuitions that they can easily explain, such as the wrongness of drunk driving, is obvious, uninteresting, and unpublishable. It is fascinating to discover that individuals who are asked to assign a punishment to a criminal are influenced by factors that they are unaware of, like the presence of the flag in the room, or that they would consciously disavow, like the color of the criminal‰ЫЄs skin. It is boring to find that individuals proposed punishments are influenced by rational considerations, such as the severity of the crime and the criminal‰ЫЄs previous record. Interesting.‰Ыќ
For having this idea (perhaps truth) about human interest, the author spends a lot of his time sharing information that one forms from common sense or is not really relevant to his books‰ЫЄ concept. This causes the book to fall in the ‰ЫПobvious‰Ыќ and ‰ЫПuninteresting‰Ыќ category listed above.
---
Warning, this is a rant: The book provided ideas like this: ‰ЫПScientist X believes in Theory Y. Theory Y is [explanation]. Most people in the field today don‰ЫЄt agree‰Ыќ. If this happened once, I wouldn‰ЫЄt be whining to you right now. It was so frustrating to listen to theories that made sense, but resulted in the author sharing that he doesn‰ЫЄt believe they are relevant for some reason or another.
bootman's review
5.0
2nd read:
I’ve been re-reading Paul Bloom’s books over the last year or so, and this was one of the first of his that I read. It still holds up, and I loved giving it another read. This is the best book I’ve read that really helps shed light on whether morality is taught or an intrinsic part of human nature. Paul’s research as well as the research of many others shows how children develop a sense of morality and fairness early on, and it’s really interesting how he blends this with evolutionary psychology as well. Definitely check this book out if you haven’t yet.
1st read:
Easily one of my new favorite books on moral psychology.
I’ve been re-reading Paul Bloom’s books over the last year or so, and this was one of the first of his that I read. It still holds up, and I loved giving it another read. This is the best book I’ve read that really helps shed light on whether morality is taught or an intrinsic part of human nature. Paul’s research as well as the research of many others shows how children develop a sense of morality and fairness early on, and it’s really interesting how he blends this with evolutionary psychology as well. Definitely check this book out if you haven’t yet.
1st read:
Easily one of my new favorite books on moral psychology.
skybalon's review
3.0
Really 3.5 stars. Some very interesting research that has some interesting potential consequences. But that's just the first 1/2 of the book. Then there is a general discussion of the origins of morality at all age levels, which while OK, was not the premise of the book. A premise that may not really be paid off at all. At least on one level, it reads like there are some morals that are 'baked' into each of us, but offers a fairly hand-wavey explanation as to how. Except it can't be supernatural. Which is OK, but seemingly just a decision on the part of the author and not necessarily supportable. Still worth the read.
ablotial's review
3.0
This was an interesting book that was recommended by an online friend. It discusses a lot of social experiments with babies and young children that seem to indicate that morality (for some definition) is present innately rather than taught to us by our parents. However, some of the more negative sides of humanity, like greed and racism of a sort according to this author, are also present and need to be taught OUT of us.
Some of the studies were really interesting, with results showing babies prefer nice characters to mean characters (at least when you use gaze times in very young babies and reaching in slightly older babies). I found myself recounting some of the studies to my husband by reading the chapter aloud to him over dinner, and we'd discuss our thoughts about how the studies were conducted. This was especially true of the studies about fairness, which I remember being obsessed with when I was young (and according to this book, it was very normal for me to have been).
As the book progressed, it became less and less about babies. Many of the studies had 7-9 year olds, and comparisons were made between them and economics students who I didn't care about. Although I did find some of those econ studies interesting because I participated in some very similar ones to earn extra cash in college. As the book went on he spent less time talking about experimental results and more time sharing his opinions, which I didn't care for.
But yeah, interesting book.
Some of the studies were really interesting, with results showing babies prefer nice characters to mean characters (at least when you use gaze times in very young babies and reaching in slightly older babies). I found myself recounting some of the studies to my husband by reading the chapter aloud to him over dinner, and we'd discuss our thoughts about how the studies were conducted. This was especially true of the studies about fairness, which I remember being obsessed with when I was young (and according to this book, it was very normal for me to have been).
As the book progressed, it became less and less about babies. Many of the studies had 7-9 year olds, and comparisons were made between them and economics students who I didn't care about. Although I did find some of those econ studies interesting because I participated in some very similar ones to earn extra cash in college. As the book went on he spent less time talking about experimental results and more time sharing his opinions, which I didn't care for.
But yeah, interesting book.