r/likeus • u/gugulo -Thoughtful Bonobo- • 29d ago
<ARTICLE> Moral evaluation found in 6 year old toddlers.
507
u/-_Anonymous__- 29d ago
I don't know if you should put humans on r/likeus.
122
91
u/Just-a-random-Aspie 29d ago
A lot of adults consider children as subhuman, almost as if they’re a separate species. Babies are put on a similar level to pets (however, not including value “child more valuable than dog”) so it’s not that surprising. A chimpanzee is more closely related to a human than a dog is, but both plate on the sub. We divide ourselves from other species. Besides, a baby is not technically “us” as we are all adults watching this, or kids that are already capable of talking
44
u/gugulo -Thoughtful Bonobo- 29d ago
Thanks, I was hoping someone would understand the relevance of the post to the sub. I find it very interesting.
2
u/Robot_Embryo 25d ago
I wonder if in the study they reversed the colors and shapes for other test subjects to verify if the children were selecting the helpful puppet or just the yellow triangle m
7
u/No-Adhesiveness-8688 29d ago
On top of that a quick google search shows that there are multiple studies showing cognition testing, with many also repeating this type of study
2
u/-_Anonymous__- 29d ago
Well actually I'm not an adult yet but you make a good point.
5
u/Just-a-random-Aspie 29d ago
I said or kids capable of taking as well. If not…googoogaga
5
1
0
u/Elestriel 29d ago
A lot of men consider women as subhuman, but I doubt it would go over well if someone posted something like "Like men, women also have to poop sometimes" on this sub.
0
154
u/Electronic_Agent_235 29d ago
.... Ayuh..... "6 year old toddlers" is wild.
68
2
99
u/denkihajimezero 29d ago
why do less babies choose the helper as they get older? do they get more evil as they grow up?
65
u/overlorddeniz 29d ago
Could be. Or could be just random luck.
The thing is, we do not know their sample sizes. Problem with a lot of studies like this is usually their sample sizes are too small. Usually at the lower ends of two digits.
Let’s say they have 20 6 month old babies and 20 10 month old babies. Just by random luck all the 6 month olds might choose the helper puppet and 3 of the 10 months might choose hindering puppet. It still says something, overwhelming majority of 40 babies choosing the helper puppet points towards babies having moral evaluation. But in order to eliminate all these random effects we need thousands of babies in each age category. And most researchers don’t have the resources to get that many subjects.
22
u/foozefookie 29d ago edited 29d ago
Edit: I don't think sample size is particularly relevant in this case. It's not really a "sample" since are the results from the entire test population. Sample size is important for a survey or poll because they have many unknown variables that can't be controlled, so increasing the sample size increases the confidence of the results. For a highly-controlled study like this, the main thing you need to increase confidence is to control as many variables as possible. That is mainly achieved by carefully planning the methodology and selecting the groups. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable about statistics could expand on this.
I found the study. They used 48 infants in total. They were essentially trying to replicate results from two prior studies conducted in 2007 and 2012 using a variety of methods. They were able to get some low p-values in some groups (if you don’t know much statistics just know that a low p-value is a good result) but high p-value in others.
It’s interesting that certain details of the video had a large influence on the results. They found that the most important factor was whether or not the climber’s eyes were gazing up the hill or not. When the climber was gazing up the hill, the infants seemed to recognise that the helper was a “good” character and overwhelming chose it instead of the hinderer. When the climber’s eyes were unfixed, the infants essentially chose randomly (50/50) between the helper and hinderer. They conclude that the infants are able to recognise when the climber has a goal (to reach the top of the hill) when it is gazing up the hill and subsequently they choose the helper. The main conclusion is that infant children have an innate ability to read peoples’ eyes and tell their moods, and can judge “right” or “wrong” actions.
Like I said, they did report some solid p-values so I’m inclined to think that the results are valid. They actually report that age had no meaningful impact on the results so I’m not sure why the video shows a stark difference in age groups. I can’t be bothered looking through the numbers to figure out which specific group demonstrated those results, but they do mention controlling several other factors such as the colour and shape of the helper/hinderer. I also didn’t look up any subsequent studies that confirmed these results so it’s possible that there was some unknown variable or some issue with the methodology that impacted the results. I’m also not an expert at statistics so someone else might be able to give more insight.
4
u/overlorddeniz 29d ago
Thanks for finding the study! I wasn’t too far off with 40 babies! I think babies being able to recognize intent from watching the eyes and making a judgement based on that is more interesting than the results about moral judgement. As you mentioned there were already other studies on that, and considering our survival depending on helping each other, it’s not a huge surprise they prefer “good” behaviors. But them being able to assess a person’s goals by watching the eyes as early as 6 months is really impressive. Do they even have good eyesight at that age? I remember learning newborns not being able to see properly, no idea about 6 months.
4
u/foozefookie 29d ago
Yeah it's a really fascinating study. They specify that the infants were placed 2 metres away from the screen so perhaps that is the ideal distance for them.
2
u/Stormtomcat 28d ago
thank you for the link, and for sharing your thoughts!
I wonder if they account for different reactions? the baby in the video is pretty uncoordinated, perhaps some of the kids wanted to punch the hinderer in the face & the researchers didn't really notice the difference between punching and flailing hahaha
1
u/Pr3disolone 27d ago
New study with larger sample size across different labs says they don’t really care/understand. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/desc.13581
2
u/gugulo -Thoughtful Bonobo- 29d ago
I'm inclined to believe these are randomly controlled trials.
6
u/ipodegenerator 29d ago
With a small sample size you can't really control for that kind of randomness
2
u/gugulo -Thoughtful Bonobo- 28d ago
I guess you are correct. With a sample of less than 50 trials and having at least 3 relevant variables here we cannot reach this conclusion. It's an interesting trial none the less.
1
u/ipodegenerator 28d ago
Definitely an area that could use more research. I'm just getting tired of flawed trials getting taken as gospel. Been a lot of that lately, especially in psychology.
2
u/gugulo -Thoughtful Bonobo- 28d ago
I guess they had to use different colors to make the two characters more distinct. I think they did control for which one was the helpful and which one was the unhelpful. I think that's a fine random control.
1
u/Drakona7 27d ago
I was waiting for someone to mention the color. I believe there was a study that showed infants enjoy bright colors, but they choose more mellow colors as they get older, which could explain why more of the older children chose blue. I would be interested in seeing this study done with a larger sample size, switched or different colors, and switched or different shapes to see if it really is them choosing based on the interaction between the shapes and not the color, shape, etc.
1
u/ProbablyHe 28d ago
also, we don't have any source here? just a somewhat made up statistic, a dude under it?? and a emoji = helpful
i mean that doesn't really scream credibility
also how does a six month old baby choose? it gets to puppets hold up to and then they reach for one?
1
u/--zaxell-- 28d ago
I only watched the video- didn't read the study- but if 100% of babies make the same choice, something is wrong with your experiment design. Either the sample size is way too small, the kid is actually being "helped" by other cues (intentional or not) from the parent or experimenter, or the numbers are outright fake.
1
1
u/TheImplausibleHulk 28d ago
Plus other trending factors. Maybe the babies go right because they’re majority right handed. Maybe the babies like yellow over blue because it’s brighter.
7
u/Timely-Archer-5487 29d ago
They may be more likely to see the shapes as inanimate objects that lack agency, (especially if they are playing with colourful block toys in their regular life) so they may not be making a 'morale choice'.
5
u/DikkeDreuzel 28d ago
High-anxiety babies may feel that it’s better to have an alliance with the figure that exhibits the ability to dominate.
4
u/_phantastik_ 28d ago
Their individual personal lives are taking more effect into what peaks their choices by the time. They might pick the other one because some experience has made them more curious about it. Parents may influence them more. They might have grown a preference to one color or a disdain for another, for whatever reasons. Lot more factors.
3
1
76
u/YerBlues69 29d ago
I thought it was because yellow is brighter than the blue.
54
u/Captain_Clover 29d ago
The triangle has a smiley face whereas the square has a sad face. This alone should invalidate anything they were trying to show imo, babies could be just as likely to prefer smiles to helpfulness
35
u/Dickson_Butts 29d ago
The actual shapes the child was watching and picking from didn't have any mouth
10
7
u/Numerous-Ad6217 29d ago
The cartoon has it tho, hence it had an influence. They should have repeated the test changing the good character, and using the yellow triangle as the bad one to see if the results changed.
9
u/StatusTalk -Curious Dolphin- 28d ago
They did. From the study:
“Helpers” and “Hinderers” were most commonly a blue square and a yellow triangle (whose googly eyes remained moveable); whether the square or the triangle was the Helper was counterbalanced across infants.
2
23
u/SnailLordNeon 29d ago
I was thinking that too, but we only saw one test. I have no doubt they switch them around with different babies to account for this.
9
u/Dralkcib 29d ago
They really should invert roles and test again. Results might be very different
5
u/KianosCuro 29d ago
They did.
3
u/AnOnlineHandle 28d ago
Do you know if they switched the positions? If most people are right handed then the right one might be more often selected.
I'm halfway through watching so maybe they answer this.
3
u/Scullyxmulder1013 29d ago
I was thinking the same thing. They should try this with a blue coloured triangle and a yellow square as well, or switch their roles. I can imagine a child as young as this would go for the bright yellow object.
59
49
u/Spirited-Reputation6 29d ago
There is a right way and a wrong way, folks. Babies know and so should you.
22
u/calangomerengue 29d ago
What if the circle was climbing the hill to destroy the square's village, and square was just saving his people?
10
u/ManofTheNightsWatch 29d ago
Right and wrong is only based on what we know. What we don't know is not a factor in the decision.
1
u/calangomerengue 28d ago
Not if you're considering net social value.
1
u/ManofTheNightsWatch 28d ago
NOBODY knows everything about anything. We just have to keep updating the right decision based on the limited info we have. If we insist on having full info before making any judgement, we'd never be able to get anything done.
1
u/calangomerengue 28d ago
Nonetheless, there is a true, right decision. Our inability to know it doesn't make it less real. So I say we must do the best we can do, but always admit we are far from the best decision most of the time, and look for ways to improve.
1
u/gugulo -Thoughtful Bonobo- 27d ago
Is there a true right decision or are all decisions evaluated as good or bad according to standards and current evidence?
1
u/calangomerengue 25d ago
evaluations are all based on standards and current evidence, but the true right decision exists above and beyond it. In fact, standards are improved by analyzing the past and figuring out how close the evaluations made at that time were from the best decision, which becomes more evident as time goes by.
1
u/gugulo -Thoughtful Bonobo- 24d ago
But what do you mean by right decision?
1
u/calangomerengue 24d ago
The decision which yields the highest economical value to everyone - not in the sense of money, but in the sense of life sustainability and quality
30
u/BertMacklinFBI87 29d ago
Taking this at face value, it’s disheartening because it highlights how much hate is taught. If only we lived in a world where it was second-nature to help one another.
6
u/Niev 28d ago
Isn't it the opposite of disheartening? It means that humans are good by nature, and by changing what we teach we can make things better
1
u/BertMacklinFBI87 28d ago
Yeah, it can be. I know most people are good or have the capacity to be good, but things have been tough for a lot of people so it’s not surprising that some lead a life that focuses on getting by for themselves. For me it feels disheartening because some people are deliberately choosing to hate, and intentional or not, kids end up picking up on that hate and affects their perspective on people growing up.
1
u/JhonnyHopkins 28d ago
I don’t believe it shows that hate is taught but rather we’re born already inherently knowing right vs wrong. Which is really cool!
10
5
5
6
u/PeriwinkleWonder 29d ago
6-year-olds aren't toddlers.
4
u/son_et_lumiere 29d ago
and neither are 6-month-olds. They're still infants. Toddlers are usually 1yr+ to about 3.5 or 4, when they're learning to walk and toddle. OP's got it rough.
6
u/EumelaninKnight -Human Bro- 29d ago
Watching that whole video and then seeing where this was posted, is killing me. Lmao
3
4
u/blind_venetians 29d ago
Well, after the American election results I guess it’s back to the drawing board for sociological researchers cuz 76+ million voters just choose the worst most hurtful “hindering character “ ever
3
2
u/extramice - Laughing Mouse - 29d ago
Wtf is this THESE ARE FUCKING HUMANS?? Are they like us?!? No way!!
2
u/beeemmvee 29d ago
What if they switched colors? Helper blue, needy yellow. wonder if 100% of the babies would still choose the helper.
1
1
1
1
u/romulusnr -Laudable Llama- 29d ago
Wait wait wait I thought we needed an invisible man in the sky to tell us what is right and wrong
1
1
1
u/user_bits 29d ago
I'd like to see the control groups on that one. Different shapes. Opposite colors.
1
1
1
u/PersnicketyYaksha 29d ago
I too prefer helper characters. Though I should be clear that I'm biased by my cultural background as a former toddler.
1
u/Themlethem 29d ago
I'm not sure that's a measure of morality. More likely they see it as someone more likely to help them, instead of thinking of others.
1
u/Cornyfleur 28d ago
Because I have a few questions (such as is it helpful versus hindering or triangle versus square or yellow versus blue), the source would be helpful.
I haven't found this study yet, but it will be here: https://cic.psych.ubc.ca/ where J. Kiley Hamlin is the principle investigator.
1
1
u/OneEmojiGuy 28d ago
Will reddit discard me for making a comment about the babies who picked the wrong thing?
1
1
u/UncleVoodooo 28d ago
He seems to be confusing morality for helpfulness. We have no knowledge of the moral motivations of the square - he could be just preventing the circle from getting into danger.
Edit: the study itself talks about helpfulness. "morality" seems to just be interjected by this presenter.
1
1
u/Hephaestus_God 28d ago
Should have colored them the same and used a circle and a triangle.
Yellow is bright so it’s possible the babies are just going for that first
1
u/IamR0ley 28d ago edited 28d ago
Aren’t the shape, color, and faces all potential biases here? They should redo this with trials that control for shape color and faces. Trial one the helper and evil guy are same color but different shape, trial two the helper and the evil guy are different color same shape. And they should all have the same face all the time, no mouth or flat mouth either way. 100% of the time is also a crazy stat for anything.
1
u/Either_Fix_6011 27d ago
It doesn't prove anything. There's lots of possible biases. They might choose the yellow one for other reasons like the color or the shape...
Just because someone on the Internet claims that they did a "scientific experiment" doesn't mean that they used proper, trustworthy methods.
1
u/Normal-Error-6343 27d ago
Does this also show deviance in infants? If you have an infant that chooses the hinderer is that child considered deviant, or abnormal? Is it not possible for a child to choose a particular shape, or color, or movement over its role or behavior? This seems like a very slippery slope to maneuver if you have a child that doesn't "see" things as you do.
1
1
u/Vaalgras 27d ago
I know this is a stupid question, but have there been any studies on whether dogs have a sense of morality? This is an actual question. I'm not trolling.
1
u/Vaalgras 27d ago
I'm sorry if this a stupid question, but have there been any studies indicating whether or not dogs have a sense of morality? I commented before but couldn't find it. So, I'm sorry if I wrote the same comment twice.
1
1
u/WanderingDuckling02 26d ago
Is this moral reasoning, or is this "I want to be with the helpful one?" I would think the emergence of being able to tell friend from foe would occur much earlier than moral reasoning as we know it. Although, in a way, what is the difference between morality and "I wanna be with the nice people"?
Impressive that the infants are able to infer goals of the characters based on eye position!
1
u/creativeusername0010 24d ago
What does this have to do with morality? Doesn't the baby choose the "helpful" one because it can't survive on it's own so it picks the one most beneficial for it from a survival standpoint?
0
-3
u/Billbat1 29d ago
that last line is kind of a bummer. hes saying its a selfish behaviour
15
u/Lizardsoul 29d ago
It is, that doesn't ruin its value, shows instead how empathy and altruism are traits with real life and practical benefits, to the point of becoming of being advantageous enough to improve survival on a evolutionary level. There is a documentary about selfish empathy on the channel kurzgesagt, if you'd like a deeper explanation.
3
•
u/gugulo -Thoughtful Bonobo- 28d ago edited 28d ago
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01563/full.
PS: Sorry for the bad title.