<story><title>Raising a moral child</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/opinion/sunday/raising-a-moral-child.html?emc=eta1&amp;_r=1</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jawns</author><text>The experiments this op-ed describes are really neat.  I especially like the one that demonstrates the importance of &amp;quot;practice what you preach.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s another cool experiment related to social&amp;#x2F;moral development, which you can perform on your own kid:&lt;p&gt;Have two grown-up friends each show your baby a toy.  The first friend should offer the toy to your kid but then retract the offer and keep the toy to himself.  The second friend should offer the toy to your kid but &amp;quot;accidentally&amp;quot; drop it out of reach.&lt;p&gt;Now, give your baby a different toy, and then prompt her to share it with one of the friends.&lt;p&gt;Your baby is very likely to share it with the friend who dropped the toy, rather than the one who withdrew the toy.&lt;p&gt;The above experiment is based on a 2010 study involving 21-month-olds.  It found that two-thirds of the kids shared with the person who dropped the toy -- and the other third kept the toy to themselves.  Not a single one shared with the person who offered the toy then retracted the offer.  (I talk about this more in &amp;quot;Experimenting With Babies&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.experimentingwithbabies.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.experimentingwithbabies.com&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;p&gt;Not only is this fascinating because it shows that babies act preferentially toward people who are kind to them ... but it holds true &lt;i&gt;EVEN IF&lt;/i&gt; the person who initiates a kind act is unable to complete it, but demonstrates the proper intent.  Think about the complexity of the cognitive processes that are going on in that evaluation.  It&amp;#x27;s amazing!</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gohrt</author><text>That book has interesting &lt;i&gt;experiments&lt;/i&gt;, but suffers psychology&amp;#x27;s common problem (especially baby psychology): massively over-extending the experimental data into unsupportable conclusions that ignore loads of confounding factors.&lt;p&gt;Example, quoted from the website:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;&amp;quot;&amp;quot;
The babies in the unjustified group spent more time looking at the adult&amp;#x27;s discordant expression and exhibited more checking behavior. Additionally, the babies&amp;#x27; facial expressions only displayed empathy for the adult when a negative emotional response fit the scenario.&lt;p&gt;The takeaway:&lt;p&gt;Parents, take note: Your toddler can see through your &amp;quot;stiff upper lip&amp;quot; routine.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;&amp;quot;&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;takeaway&amp;quot; is completely unsupported. In no way does the experiment suggest that hiding pain is useless.&lt;p&gt;For one thing, &amp;quot;stiff upper lip&amp;quot; (aka &amp;quot;faked neutrality&amp;quot;) is different from faked &lt;i&gt;happiness&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;For two, the experimental methodology only applies to cases where the baby &lt;i&gt;knows&lt;/i&gt; that the experience&amp;#x27;s standard emotional response. That applies to hammer strikes on a finger, but not something like divorce or losing a job.&lt;p&gt;For three, &amp;quot;spent more time looking at the adult&amp;#x27;s discordant expression&amp;quot; shows that the babies &lt;i&gt;learn&lt;/i&gt; from their parents reactions, as they expend effort to understand counterintuitive behavior. &amp;quot;Counterintuitive&amp;quot; is not the same as &amp;quot;fake&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;wrong&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;So the &amp;quot;takeway&amp;quot; may in fact be the &lt;i&gt;opposite&lt;/i&gt; of what the data suggests!</text></comment>
<story><title>Raising a moral child</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/opinion/sunday/raising-a-moral-child.html?emc=eta1&amp;_r=1</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jawns</author><text>The experiments this op-ed describes are really neat.  I especially like the one that demonstrates the importance of &amp;quot;practice what you preach.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s another cool experiment related to social&amp;#x2F;moral development, which you can perform on your own kid:&lt;p&gt;Have two grown-up friends each show your baby a toy.  The first friend should offer the toy to your kid but then retract the offer and keep the toy to himself.  The second friend should offer the toy to your kid but &amp;quot;accidentally&amp;quot; drop it out of reach.&lt;p&gt;Now, give your baby a different toy, and then prompt her to share it with one of the friends.&lt;p&gt;Your baby is very likely to share it with the friend who dropped the toy, rather than the one who withdrew the toy.&lt;p&gt;The above experiment is based on a 2010 study involving 21-month-olds.  It found that two-thirds of the kids shared with the person who dropped the toy -- and the other third kept the toy to themselves.  Not a single one shared with the person who offered the toy then retracted the offer.  (I talk about this more in &amp;quot;Experimenting With Babies&amp;quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.experimentingwithbabies.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.experimentingwithbabies.com&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;p&gt;Not only is this fascinating because it shows that babies act preferentially toward people who are kind to them ... but it holds true &lt;i&gt;EVEN IF&lt;/i&gt; the person who initiates a kind act is unable to complete it, but demonstrates the proper intent.  Think about the complexity of the cognitive processes that are going on in that evaluation.  It&amp;#x27;s amazing!</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>cstavish</author><text>Who would have thought that 21-month-olds are predisposed to Kantian ethics?</text></comment>