We have handled with equanimity the concept that the Earth is not the center of the universe, though some good fellows who championed that idea when it was new suffered mightily for doing so. Most of us, even the redoubtable Catholic Church, have accepted that evolution explains animal diversity and even the emergence of humans, although there are some who for religious (not scientific) reasons are kicking and screaming in refusal. Science cannot itself take on the existence of gods, for that is not a scientific question, nor is the existence of an afterlife. But souls; now there is something that science, and especially modern neuroscience, might go to work on. In _Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human_ (Basic Books), Paul Bloom takes an even more basic approach, hardly mentioning such technological wonders as the scanners that show brains at work. He examines a wealth of clever experiments on babies and children to answer about babies the question posed more often about disreputable politicians: "What do they know, and when do they know it?" The answers provide an entertaining and informative evaluation of what we might be able to tell about souls.
René Descartes promoted "dualism": the body exists, and it is a machine of meat which, when it is alive, is coupled with an immaterial soul. This, according to Bloom, is a natural view; evolution itself has made us into dualists. We are wired to perceive material objects and mental manifestations as separate entities, and so naturally we think of the two as separate realms. But that we evolved that way is not an argument that it is the right way to think of things. From the very beginning, experiments show, babies treat the world as dual. Bloom goes on to explain experiments that show that children have inborn knowledge of fairness that is at the heart of our ability to get along with others. "... Our moral feelings are no less adaptations than our taste for sweet foods and our perception of solid objects." We are from an early age able to empathize with the pain of others, which leads to compassion and to helping them; it's all commendable behavior, and no less so because we come into the world hard-wired to perform it.
We perform it because it pays to perform it, and it simply gives us a reproductive advantage. Empathetic people (and those with altruism and other laudable traits described here) are most successful at working in societies, and we are social animals. What's more, they will be more effective in understanding and raising children, and so the behavior will be passed on. Bloom is clearly a materialist, not a dualist, but wisely avoids any attempt to prove the issue. What he has done instead is not to examine if dualism is justified, but merely why belief in it is so prevalent. The belief that objects are not really solid is just as fundamentally unnatural as the belief that mind is an emergent physical property of the brain. This could be heavy stuff, and philosophers have argued heavily for centuries one way or the other. But Bloom has a diverse array of interests, and includes discussion of such subjects as slapstick humor, autism, modern art, and disgust. Those familiar with Noam Chomsky's claim that we have special "language organs" in our brains that make us linguistic creatures will find that idea mentioned here, but vastly expanded to show our "physics organ" and "social organ". Throughout Bloom has illustrated his arguments with summaries of his own or others' experiments on babies. Those who would expect a materialist also to be a pessimist will be disappointed; he declares himself to be a "morally optimistic materialist," and gives examples of moral improvement (like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that would have made little sense to our forebears. Not bad for a bunch of natural-born dualists.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
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 Hardcover – April 13, 2004
by
Paul Bloom
(Author)
"If you really want to understand human nature, you must observe people as they are before they are corrupted by language and culture, by MTV and Hebrew school. You must look at babies." So contends psychologist Paul Bloom-whom Steven Pinker calls "the wunderkind of cognitive science"-in this fascinating account of how we learn to make sense of reality. All humans see the world in two fundamentally different ways: Even babies have a rich understanding of both the physical and social worlds. They expect objects to obey principles of physics, and they're startled when things disappear or defy gravity. Yet they can also read emotions and respond with anger, sympathy, and joy.In Descartes' Baby, Bloom draws on a wealth of scientific discoveries to show how these two ways of knowing give rise to such uniquely human traits as humor, disgust, religion, art, and morality. The myriad ways that our dualist perspectives, born in infancy, undergo development throughout our lives and profoundly influence our thoughts, feelings, and actions is the subject of this richly rewarding book.
- Print length288 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherBasic Books
- Publication dateApril 13, 2004
- Dimensions6.75 x 1.25 x 10 inches
- ISBN-10046500783X
- ISBN-13978-0465007837
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Similar items that ship from close to you
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Customer reviews
4.3 out of 5 stars
4.3 out of 5
48 global ratings
How customer reviews and ratings work
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 AmazonTop reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2004
- Reviewed in the United States on September 30, 2010In his very interesting book, titled "Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human", Yale University Professor of Psychology Paul Bloom attempts, with considerable success, to explore how the basic evolutionary endowment of human beings manifests itself in the material, social, and spiritual realms. It is a very worthwhile read and I highly recommend it to anyone seriously interested in our human nature and its inherent possibilities.
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.
Top reviews from other countries
-
CGReviewed in Germany on March 23, 20135.0 out of 5 stars Sehr gut
Sehr gut geschrieben, spannend zu lesen - regt zum Nachdenken an. Das Englisch ist gut verständlich. Der kauf lohnt sich!
SphexReviewed in the United Kingdom on May 18, 20095.0 out of 5 stars Is growing up
The idea of an immaterial soul somehow connected to our physical bodies is hard to resist, and not just because it lies at the heart of many religions or because of great thinkers such as Descartes. We all begin life as "natural-born dualists" who "see the world as containing both physical things, which are governed by principles such as solidity and gravity, and immaterial minds, which are driven by emotions and goals." Even those of us who grow up to accept that "we are material beings" - "that the conscious self arises from a purely physical brain" - still use the language of dualism in phrases like "my brain". Throughout this brilliant book Paul Bloom describes these intuitions and challenges some of our most basic assumptions, drawing on discoveries from developmental psychology, clinical research and neuroscience to show the many ways in which we "understand and respond to the minds of other people."
"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."
Chi Hui Yang ZhangReviewed in the United Kingdom on July 10, 20163.0 out of 5 stars I feel the author did not develop his brilliant idea (that we are born dualists who see the ...
I was excited by the concept of this book when I read its description and reviews. I felt it is one of those that can change the way you see the world. This it did. However, I feel the author did not develop his brilliant idea (that we are born dualists who see the world as physical as well as mental) and how it influences our conception of things such as art and religion in as much detail as it deserves - it really is such an excellent idea that can explain so much, and for that the book is well worth reading. As with Prof Bloom's 'Just Babies' book, the description of studies with children are fascinating; however, he does sometimes go off on long tangents with a lot of philosophical passages. I personally felt the sections based on studies and anecdotes a lot stronger with regards to the idea he was developing. But his style is so thoughtful and entertaining that overall it was a pleasure to read.
Amazon CustomerReviewed in the United Kingdom on August 6, 20041.0 out of 5 stars Inaccurate and imprecise
This is one of those books that packs it pages with utterly unnecessary waffle and all 240 pages could be summed up in a page or two. The book includes sentences such as: "About 1.5 million species have been identified and described so far, an impressive number, but the number of patents in the United States alone is much greater: over 7 million." I read the chapter carefully but I still can't fathom his point.
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.
PipistrelReviewed in the United Kingdom on November 6, 20075.0 out of 5 stars Roots of the infantile
This is a brilliant account of how children naturally develop a divided view of the world, with minds or souls or spirits leading a separate life from bodies. Bloom describes many fascinating experiments, some of them ingeniously showing what infants think even before they can talk. It is all presented and discussed clearly with minimal resort to technical terms. My only quarrel - a small one - is with the title. Descartes invented a very unnatural dualism, which forbids spirits from interfering in any way with physical things. Children believe all too easily in witchcraft and magic and all kinds of hocus pocus, and many of them grow up into adults who imagine that disease and disaster are God's punishment for the sins of the people.




