Scan barcode
jay_sy's review
informative
fast-paced
4.0
I've watched some of Paul Bloom's lectures online so I was looking forward to reading Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, a book about our moral understandings and what babies are born with.
Some of the things I found noteworty:
-A lot of moral behavior is determined by culture but some of it is universal and can be seen in experiments done on babies such as looking time experiments
-There are differences between empathy and compassion and one can exist without the other. Empathy can also cause people to distance themselves from uncomfortable situations
-Babies understanding of moral situations May apply first to others before themselves (it isn't until they are older that they see themselves as moral agents, which can manifest as shame guilt or Pride)
-It was really interesting that there is a link between feelings of guilt and having higher empathy
-Young children are particularly prone to the equality fallacy where they think all things should be equal, regardless of effort or merit. This brings up the question of whether the Robin Hood principle is correct, that we wanted to distribute Goods fairly. To this end, it was interesting to hear about the experiments done on how people choose to distribute Goods such as the ultimatum game or the dictator game. However it seems like people care more about looking good and generous than actually being generous. Also it is noted that children care about unfairness against them but happily accept when the situation is to their advantage
-Punishment may be one of the ways that people used to establish equality. Equality isn't just about distributing resources equally but taking away from others who are perceived to have too much. But when it comes to punishment it seems like most people care more about harming others then about the consequences of the punishment.
-I also found it funny to learn that children really like to tattle as a way to deal with others' transgressions
-It was interesting to read about what determines the in-group versus the group. It seems as if people are more like coalitional beings than having an innate racism. However people are also very fast to form into groups even on very tenuous details.
-Disgust may have biological Origins to protect us from ingesting things that harm us but since it is hard to like the things that discussed us it ends up being tied to our moral intuitions even though it shouldn't necessarily be the case
-We have different standards of morality depending on if someone is kin, part of the ingroup, or strangers, and these categories are porous
-The trolley problem might not actually be a test of morality, but an act of mental math, since other studies show that people aren’t necessarily likely to donate more money to help one sick child vs a hundred
-Culture can play a large role in shaping people's morality and helping to overcome children's innate narrow moral circle. However it seems like children are more likely to mimic selfish behavior from their role models rather than moral Behavior as if looking for an excuse to behave badly.
Over all, just like his lectures, I enjoyed this book. It was informative and thought-provoking and I would give it a 4 out of 5
Some of the things I found noteworty:
-A lot of moral behavior is determined by culture but some of it is universal and can be seen in experiments done on babies such as looking time experiments
-There are differences between empathy and compassion and one can exist without the other. Empathy can also cause people to distance themselves from uncomfortable situations
-Babies understanding of moral situations May apply first to others before themselves (it isn't until they are older that they see themselves as moral agents, which can manifest as shame guilt or Pride)
-It was really interesting that there is a link between feelings of guilt and having higher empathy
-Young children are particularly prone to the equality fallacy where they think all things should be equal, regardless of effort or merit. This brings up the question of whether the Robin Hood principle is correct, that we wanted to distribute Goods fairly. To this end, it was interesting to hear about the experiments done on how people choose to distribute Goods such as the ultimatum game or the dictator game. However it seems like people care more about looking good and generous than actually being generous. Also it is noted that children care about unfairness against them but happily accept when the situation is to their advantage
-Punishment may be one of the ways that people used to establish equality. Equality isn't just about distributing resources equally but taking away from others who are perceived to have too much. But when it comes to punishment it seems like most people care more about harming others then about the consequences of the punishment.
-I also found it funny to learn that children really like to tattle as a way to deal with others' transgressions
-It was interesting to read about what determines the in-group versus the group. It seems as if people are more like coalitional beings than having an innate racism. However people are also very fast to form into groups even on very tenuous details.
-Disgust may have biological Origins to protect us from ingesting things that harm us but since it is hard to like the things that discussed us it ends up being tied to our moral intuitions even though it shouldn't necessarily be the case
-We have different standards of morality depending on if someone is kin, part of the ingroup, or strangers, and these categories are porous
-The trolley problem might not actually be a test of morality, but an act of mental math, since other studies show that people aren’t necessarily likely to donate more money to help one sick child vs a hundred
-Culture can play a large role in shaping people's morality and helping to overcome children's innate narrow moral circle. However it seems like children are more likely to mimic selfish behavior from their role models rather than moral Behavior as if looking for an excuse to behave badly.
Over all, just like his lectures, I enjoyed this book. It was informative and thought-provoking and I would give it a 4 out of 5
erin_oriordan_is_reading_again's review
4.0
I majored in psychology in college, and I'm still fascinated by the science of how the human mind works. For that reason, I decided to read Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil.
The author, Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom, states in the preface that some of his inspiration for this work combining developmental and evolutionary psychology with moral philosophy was a book by Adam Smith which Bloom had studied in Edinburgh. Smith is more widely known for An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (often shortened to The Wealth of Nations), but the volume that concerned Bloom was The Theory of the Moral Sentiments.
In his 1749 work, Smith claimed human beings were born with a sense of morality. Bloom also brings in Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1787, "The moral sense, or conscience, is as much part of [a hu]man as his [or her] leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree."
Bloom goes on to demonstrate, using evidence gleaned from various scientific studies, that psychologists tend to favor the view that some of what we call morality is inborn to human beings. The first chapter deals explicitly with what "morality" might mean in human beings who are less than two years old. Subsequent chapters branch out into what morality means in adults, because we have to understand what kinds of behaviors we're talking about when we try to define what moral behavior is.
Overall, Bloom's evidence suggests the moral picture of the human species is a fairly optimistic one. Human beings do seem to be wired to be empathetic and helpful to one another, even when acts of kindness do not immediately reward us. Interestingly, Bloom also cites evidence of empathetic behavior in non-human animals. Even rats hate to see other rats suffering.
Even though the title is a bit of a misdirect, since the entire construction doesn't deal exclusively with infant morality, the research itself is fascinating. Not only that, but Bloom has organized it into chapters that are clear, intuitive, and readable. I don't think one would need to be a psychology major to understand this book. Like Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Bill Nye the Science Guy, Bloom has the gift of translating scientific concepts into everyday language.
I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review.
The author, Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom, states in the preface that some of his inspiration for this work combining developmental and evolutionary psychology with moral philosophy was a book by Adam Smith which Bloom had studied in Edinburgh. Smith is more widely known for An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (often shortened to The Wealth of Nations), but the volume that concerned Bloom was The Theory of the Moral Sentiments.
In his 1749 work, Smith claimed human beings were born with a sense of morality. Bloom also brings in Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1787, "The moral sense, or conscience, is as much part of [a hu]man as his [or her] leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree."
Bloom goes on to demonstrate, using evidence gleaned from various scientific studies, that psychologists tend to favor the view that some of what we call morality is inborn to human beings. The first chapter deals explicitly with what "morality" might mean in human beings who are less than two years old. Subsequent chapters branch out into what morality means in adults, because we have to understand what kinds of behaviors we're talking about when we try to define what moral behavior is.
Overall, Bloom's evidence suggests the moral picture of the human species is a fairly optimistic one. Human beings do seem to be wired to be empathetic and helpful to one another, even when acts of kindness do not immediately reward us. Interestingly, Bloom also cites evidence of empathetic behavior in non-human animals. Even rats hate to see other rats suffering.
Even though the title is a bit of a misdirect, since the entire construction doesn't deal exclusively with infant morality, the research itself is fascinating. Not only that, but Bloom has organized it into chapters that are clear, intuitive, and readable. I don't think one would need to be a psychology major to understand this book. Like Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Bill Nye the Science Guy, Bloom has the gift of translating scientific concepts into everyday language.
I received this book from Blogging for Books for this review.
lucy_qhuay's review
4.0
A very interesting discussion on morality, involving different psychological, sociological and biological perspectives.
amberinhonduras's review
4.0
Interesting things to think about and some surprising research but not much resolution.
He definitely doesn't come from a Christian mindset.
He definitely doesn't come from a Christian mindset.
supperrupper's review
3.0
Interesting look at morality and the innate morals that we seem to have and how evolution has effected our morals. [Required reading completed]
justaguy's review
2.0
Hmm
At beginning, it was definitely fantastic knowledge to learn. Somehow as it goes on it became distort...I felt like I am veering out into more of adult life rather than baby. Then at end, it just lack of good closure while already veered off the point. Wish it could be done better.
At beginning, it was definitely fantastic knowledge to learn. Somehow as it goes on it became distort...I felt like I am veering out into more of adult life rather than baby. Then at end, it just lack of good closure while already veered off the point. Wish it could be done better.
3gully's review
4.0
Each chapter prompted thought for me, but in a way a dry textbook couldn't. The way Bloom writes seems identical to the way he speaks; welcoming, and comical at times, but without the loss of appreciation for the dilemmas he discussed.
Towards the end Bloom sealed the 5 star deal for me by referencing Rick Blaine from Casablanca, in order to argue for a human innate sense of the greater good.
"Look, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."
Towards the end Bloom sealed the 5 star deal for me by referencing Rick Blaine from Casablanca, in order to argue for a human innate sense of the greater good.
"Look, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."