Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Instant streaming of thousands of movies and TV episodes with Prime Video
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Buy new:
$19.99$19.99
FREE delivery: Saturday, May 27 on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy used: $8.47
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
+ $3.99 shipping
84% positive over last 12 months
& FREE Shipping
96% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human Paperback – International Edition, April 27, 2005
| Price | New from | Used from |
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length288 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- Publication dateApril 27, 2005
- Dimensions5 x 0.72 x 8 inches
- ISBN-100465007864
- ISBN-13978-0465007868
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together

What do customers buy after viewing this item?
- Lowest Pricein this set of products
The Sweet Spot: The Pleasures of Suffering and the Search for MeaningHardcover
Editorial Reviews
Review
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : Basic Books; Illustrated edition (April 27, 2005)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 288 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0465007864
- ISBN-13 : 978-0465007868
- Item Weight : 8 ounces
- Dimensions : 5 x 0.72 x 8 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,162,864 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1,950 in Medical Cognitive Psychology
- #2,982 in Cognitive Psychology (Books)
- #5,651 in Medical General Psychology
- Customer Reviews:
About the authors

Paul Bloom is the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Science at Yale University. His research explores how children and adults understand the physical and social world, with special focus on morality, religion, fiction, and art. His popular writing has appeared in the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, Slate, Natural History, and many other publications. He has won numerous awards for his research and teaching. He lives in Guilford, Connecticut.

Paul Bloom is a professor of psychology at Yale University. He is the author of "How Children Learn the Meanings of Words," "Descartes’ Baby" and "How Pleasure Works." He has contributed to The Atlantic, the New York Times, Science, and Nature. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
There is, however, at least one point where Bloom goes sadly astray. It is in the very last section of the last chapter ("The Body and Soul Emotion") of the third section ("Part III - The Social Realm") and it is titled "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" (pp. 182-186 in the paperback edition). It is his discussion of humor. It makes it abundantly clear that Bloom is rather dreary fellow with no real experience of the reality of children and laughter.
Bloom engages the notion that humor lies in any sort of "shift of perspective" or "incongruity between what we expect and what actually happens." As Bloom sees it, this just won't do. The problem with this, as he explains it, is:
"The missing ingredient is a certain type of wickedness. No serious student of laughter could miss its cruel nature. The psychologist Robert Provine notes that despite laughter's sometimes gentle reputation, it can be an outrageously vicious sound. Not so long ago, the elite would find it endlessly amusing to visit insane asylums and laugh at the inmates; physical and mental deformity has always been a source of amusement. There was no shortage of laughter at public executions and floggings, and the sound is often an accompaniment to raping, looting, and killing in time of war. . .
"We're getting there, but it is too simple to see humor as a shifting frame of reference with an added dash of cruelty. It needs to be the right type of cruelty . . .
"The important ingredient here is a loss of dignity; someone is knocked off his pedestal, brought down a peg. Laughter can serve as a weapon, one that can be used by a mob. It is contagious and involuntary; it has great subversive power, so much so that Plato thought it should be banned from the state. . .
"Humor can also have a particularly direct relationship to the interplay between bodies and souls. Humor involves a shift in perspective, and one of the most striking shifts is when we move from seeing someone as a sentient being, a soul, to seeing the person merely as a body. . .
"In his study of American slapstick, Alan Dale notes that every funny act falls into one of two categories - the blow and the fall . . .
"Disgust, religion, and slapstick all traffic in what Dale calls `the debasing effect of the body on the soul.' But they do so indifferent ways. Disgust focuses on the body, dismissing the soul; religion, at least some part of the time, focuses on the soul and rejects the body. And slapstick is the richest of all, as it deals with both at the same time, showing a person with feeling and goals trapped in a treacherous physical shell . . .
"If you are in a bind and need to make a two-year-old laugh, the best way to do so is to adopt a surprised expression and fall on your ass."
So, in summary, according to Bloom, no laughter originates in joy, only in cruelty, however cleverly disguised. Humor always involves the denigration of others.
Bloom is dead wrong, as anyone with real experience of a happy child, laughing at the waves of the sea, at the joy of moving, at the sun and the wind can see directly. And those who, like Bloom, object to humor and who see it as only grounded in cruelty or disrespect, say, provide prima facia evidence that they take themselves far too seriously; that they are, in fact, whatever their capacities and attainments, still under the spell of what some like to call `the commanding self'. In this respect, they are companions of the hide-bound religious literalists, not of the Deity they `piously' invoke.
Bloom thinks those experiments prove babies are Cartesian dualists because they distinguish objects from belief-holding humans. But dualism isn't simply the belief that there's a difference between people and objects. We were making that distinction before Descartes. Cartesian dualism conceives of the mental and the physical as so distinct and different that it doesn't seem the two could ever even interact. And that's not a distinction babies make. If "dualism" means that we distinguish conscious critters from inanimate things, then, yes, we're all dualists. But what have we learned except a new definition of "dualist"?
Baby dualism isn't even necessary dual. I can believe that you are different from a log because you are aware of and care about your world without thinking that you are made of two types of substance. I don't think Bloom has shown much more than that babies are aware that logs don't think and feel but people do.
This "insight" doesn't give Bloom much of a lever for understanding the Big Issues he deals with: Art, philosophy, religion, ethics... For example, he wonders how we can be moved by "anxious objects," i.e., art such as Warhol's Brillo boxes or conceptual art such as a dead horse hung from the ceiling. Most of the chapter goes through the predictable explanations of why we respond to art. At the end he acknowledges that he hasn't yet explained the appeal of "anxious" art. The big explanation: "...We enjoy displays of skill, of virtuosity, both physical and intellectual." But that's true of non-anxious art, and not true of all anxious art. Without acknowledging this, he moves on to say that we enjoy anxious art because we can see the human intention in it. But, again, that's true of all art, not just anxious art. His investigation does not come close to answering the question he raises. (Artworks are a good example of the impossibility of separating the physical and the intentional...evidence against dualism.)
Likewise, his explanation of why children tend to believe in Creationism (AKA Intelligent Design) - it is "a natural by-product of a mind evolved to think in terms of goals and intentions" - doesn't help. Animism also seems to be a "natural by-product." So what? How does this socio-biological explanation help? Likewise for his explanation of altruism, his discussion of essentialism - which waters the concept down the way the book waters down "dualism" - his consideration of the origin of religious beliefs, etc.
The book is exceptionally well written and engaging. The baby research is fascinating. But I think it fails as an attempt to make something big out of that research.
Top reviews from other countries
"Babies prefer to look at faces more than just about anything else" and, by their first birthday, they are social beings. Before their second birthday, children "not only understand that people have desires, they also know that others' desires might differ from their own." Three-year-olds can tell the difference between an intentionally and an accidentally created object - they can "think about things in terms of design and purpose" and are beginning to display the "promiscuous teleology" that both enhances and frustrates our understanding of the world. Four-year-olds typically succeed at the "false-belief task" in which they must "reason about another actor's mental state." To pass this test, "you have to hold in your mind two conflicting pictures of the world": the world as it really is and the world as it is imagined by someone else. Throw into the mix the acquisition of language and we can see just how much is going on in those first few years.
It's hardly surprising that child development doesn't always run smoothly. Autistic children, for example, typically show impairments in communication and imagination and, most of all, "in the ability to interact appropriately with others." Psychologists have coined the term "mindblindness" to describe the most extreme form of autism, in which "people are seen as nothing more than objects". Bloom recounts an experience while working with autistic children as a teenage counsellor: "a severely impaired seven-year-old boy walked up to me and placed his hands on my shoulders" in what appeared at first to be a spontaneous act of affection. But then "he tightened his grip, jumped up... and started to climb". The boy was using Bloom as a ladder.
While autistic brains respond to faces as if they were objects, normal brains have a "tendency to ascribe intention to inanimate objects" - we anthropomorphize. Babies can ascribe mental states to geometrical shapes that are moving in a purposeful way and "young children are prone to see much of the physical and biological world as existing for a purpose, consisting of artifacts created by a divine designer". Even sophisticated theologians are seduced by "the argument from design". Resistance to Darwin's theory of natural selection - which explains "complex and adaptive design without positing a divine designer" - is not only rooted in scripture but in our psychology: we are "so hypersensitive to signs of agency that we see intention where all that really exists is artifice or accident".
This essentialist way of thinking - ascribing to objects "a nature that transcends their appearance" - "appears to be a basic component of how we think about the world". It "drives us to search for the deeper nature of things" and perhaps underpins our near universal religious impulse as well as our natural curiosity about the world. Modern science, however, is often counterintuitive: evolutionary theory, for example, "violates hardcore essentialism, as it conflicts with the notion that species have immutable essences (they do not, they evolve)".
These fascinating insights into what makes us human prepare the ground for Bloom to explore the idea "that the roots of morality are innate" rather than handed down on tablets of stone. Empathy, for example, emerges very early, and "by the time children are about two years of age, they care about others and will act to make them feel better." Within another year the child gets truly moral and can experience pride, shame and guilt. As we grow and mature, our "enhanced social intelligence allows us to reason about how other people will act and react in situations that do not yet exist, so as to plan and assess the consequences of our own actions." Seeing these situations "from another person's point of view" is crucial for our moral sense.
Eventually, unless trapped by narrow religious or social custom, we "come to transcend our innate, parochial, moral sense" and seek ways to expand "the original moral circle" defined by "kin selection and reciprocal altruism". One hugely important endpoint of such a process is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represents tremendous moral progress. "In both morality and science, each generation has the advantage of the insights of all the generations that have come before" (contradicting writers like John Gray, who have a rather more dismal view of humanity).
Some consider the Golden Rule to be the pinnacle of moral achievement, forgetting that such a crude principle is compatible with, for example, slavery, "so long as you restrict the moral circle so that the Golden Rule does not apply to those you would take as slaves". The good news is that we can work towards expanding our moral circle, through recognizing our mutual interdependence, having increased contact with diverse groups, persuading with images and stories, and gathering moral insight. Bloom admits that, for some, the "notion that our souls are flesh is profoundly troubling" but he ends on a positive note: "only now, with the converging work of philosophers, psychologists, and evolutionary theorists, is it possible to be a morally optimistic materialist."
And some of his arguments are very poor. For example, he states: "In a national survey, Americans were asked whether they agreed with the statement: 'TWO PEOPLE from the SAME RACE will always be more genetically similar to each other than TWO PEOPLE from DIFFERENT RACES.' Most adults agreed with this statement [Author's caps]." The key word is, of course, 'always'. I might have chosen two people with wildly different sets of genes within the same race and two people with very similar sets of genes from the two different 'races'. Only one gene perhaps separates them race-wise. Hence you should disagree with this statement.
But Bloom then goes on to say: "In fact, two randomly chosen members of the same race are genetically far more different from each other than the average member of one race is from the average member of another." Really? If he is talking about some measure of DNA, surely there is a good chance that two randomly chosen members of the same race are average and hence are as likely to be close to each other as to any 'averages' between the two different races?
His information is poor too. He wrote, for example: "...when England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 ... farmers rioted because they worried that the lost 11 days would ruin the growing season!" This is just an early urban myth.
There are much better popular science books to buy on Amazon than this.







