Wednesday, November 13, 2019
"Baby experiment"
This experiment is about to see how babies actions can be based whether they're gonna end up 'good' or evil'. You can't really make out on how babies gonna be later on in life, because their mind and body are not yet developed because they are still too young. People have tried to do a "ball" experiment which they give it to the baby. If the baby returns the ball that means they are considered a 'good' kid, but if they have kept the ball then they are considered a 'bad' kid. It's a harmless experiment, but the most that stood out to me in this experiment is why would the parents volunteer their children is this experiment in the first place, because babies are not yet developed so you don't really know what they're gonna do most of the time, and that's why parents are there to raise, and support them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
As Coronavirus is spreading through the world, people are losing their lives and the virus has been spreading out of hand. As it entered t... -
Ethan Couch and his defense team used an 'affluenza defense'. Affluenza is the psychological condition in which wealthy children hav...
-
Welcome to our classroom blog! I sincerely hope you find this a valuable resource for information and sharing ideas. Please remember to ob...
At the end of the day it's what the kid is learning from their parents. Parents teach their kids right from wrong and help them to better understand society and how they survive. Manners, respect etc. Its all about the surrounding influences on the child and of course chemical imbalances in children.
ReplyDeleteI agree most with your commentary on the baby experiment. Compared to the experiment conducted at Yale with the babies, Jim Fallon’s observations seem a lot more trustworthy. The Yale experiment focused primarily on measuring the qualitative data: determining morality by whether a child picked a certain plushie. Fallon gathered both quantitative and qualitative data in his study. He observed that the samples in his study all had a violent past, were missing one gene and had a variant of the warrior gene (MAO-A). He inferred that if an individual had a variant of this gene, they were more likely to be violent. This was true, especially if they grew up in a bad environment. If a person is predisposed to violent tendencies and they didn’t get proper nurturing and care, then it makes sense why they may become more violent. Logically, this makes sense and seems more reasonable than determining one’s morality by which stuffed animal they picked as a child. One decision a baby makes is not comparable to the collective experience they had growing up. I agree that while genes increase one’s chances of being a violent psychopath, one’s environment decides whether they will actually become one. This post does a good job of emphasizing the importance of a parental presence in a child's life.
ReplyDelete