That book has interesting experiments, but suffers psychology's common problem (especially baby psychology): massively over-extending the experimental data into

That book has interesting experiments, but suffers psychology's common problem (especially baby psychology): massively over-extending the experimental data into unsupportable conclusions that ignore loads of confounding factors. Example, quoted from the website: """ The babies in the unjustified group spent more time looking at the adult's discordant expression and exhibited more checking behavior. Additionally, the babies' facial expressions only displayed empathy for the adult when a negative emotional response fit the scenario. The takeaway: Parents, take note: Your toddler can see through your "stiff upper lip" routine. """ The "takeaway" is completely unsupported. In no way does the experiment suggest that hiding pain is useless. For one thing, "stiff upper lip" (aka "faked neutrality") is different from faked happiness. For two, the experimental methodology only applies to cases where the baby knows that the experience's standard emotional response. That applies to hammer strikes on a finger, but not something like divorce or losing a job. For three, "spent more time looking at the adult's discordant expression" shows that the babies learn from their parents reactions, as they expend effort to understand counterintuitive behavior. "Counterintuitive" is not the same as "fake" or "wrong". So the "takeway" may in fact be the opposite of what the data suggests!