3 ms·

to paraphrase from a couple sections of the article: they are making judgements of 'like me, not like me' and that 'like me' is better than not like me. they ma

to paraphrase from a couple sections of the article: they are making judgements of 'like me, not like me' and that 'like me' is better than not like me. they may not have context for what black and white are or for that matter race, but they are still making value judgements based on it.

GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
That's not true. The article says that it's the three to six YEAR olds who are making value judgements, not the 6 MONTH old babies. The headline is making a more dramatic point than is supported by the article by conflating all ages. From the article: How do researchers test a 6-month-old? They show babies photographs of faces. Katz found that babies will stare significantly longer at photographs of faces that are a different race from their parents, indicating they find the face out of the ordinary. Race itself has no ethnic meaning per se—but children's brains are noticing skin-color differences and trying to understand their meaning. When the kids turned 3, Katz showed them photographs of other children and asked them to choose whom they'd like to have as friends. Of the white children, 86 percent picked children of their own race.
- spooneybarger 17y ago
  i will go back to your original comment and again state that i think the article is attempting to imply that not only are they recognizing differences of skin color but the article presents additional info in relation to 'the t-shirt test'. that the 'judge' isn't out of line with what the article implies. what i take away as the message the article wants to convey: young children notice differences between things. even when no value is assigned to those differences by others, like me is seen as better. judgements are made. children as young as 6 months show this quality of noticing the differences in skin color. the implication is clear. to say that the sub headline isnt in line with the article is in my mind, specious.
  - GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
    Again you bring up an element - the t-shirt test - which has nothing to do with 6 months olds. There is an enormous developmental and cognitive difference between a 6 month old infant and a four year old child. An infant is extremely observant - this is well-documented - but is not making any judgements about those observations, other than "Am I fed, safe and comfortable". The implication that a six month old is judging others based on race is an astonishing and improbable claim so it's highly significant that that claim is not substantiated by the article. Newsweek was wildly skewing the science to sell magazines.
    - spooneybarger 17y ago
      again, back to the entire point... i think that the subheadline is inline with the content of the article. it isnt an attempt to change the meaning of the article, it is what the other was trying to imply. skewing science? yes. but you said you doubted that the author had anything to do with the 6 month making judgements line. i disagree. i think the entire article is trying to lead you to that idea. i'm not arguing that they didn't misrepresent things with that headline, i'm just saying that the entire article makes the same attempt at misrepresentation. the only original statement of yours i disagree with is: "The "racy" subheading of the article (which was also used for the HN submission) was probably not written by the author of the article" you then say: "The actual article does NOT say that children as 6 months "judge others" based on skin color. It DOES say that one study makes the rather banal observation that 6 month old babies can detect a difference between white skin and dark skin." which is true but beside the point in my mind because i think that the 6 month old children makes judgements based on race is something the article implies and wants the read to come away with.

GiraffeNecktie 17y ago

That's not true. The article says that it's the three to six YEAR olds who are making value judgements, not the 6 MONTH old babies. The headline is making a more dramatic point than is supported by the article by conflating all ages. From the article: How do researchers test a 6-month-old? They show babies photographs of faces. Katz found that babies will stare significantly longer at photographs of faces that are a different race from their parents, indicating they find the face out of the ordinary. Race itself has no ethnic meaning per se—but children's brains are noticing skin-color differences and trying to understand their meaning. When the kids turned 3, Katz showed them photographs of other children and asked them to choose whom they'd like to have as friends. Of the white children, 86 percent picked children of their own race.

spooneybarger 17y ago
i will go back to your original comment and again state that i think the article is attempting to imply that not only are they recognizing differences of skin color but the article presents additional info in relation to 'the t-shirt test'. that the 'judge' isn't out of line with what the article implies. what i take away as the message the article wants to convey: young children notice differences between things. even when no value is assigned to those differences by others, like me is seen as better. judgements are made. children as young as 6 months show this quality of noticing the differences in skin color. the implication is clear. to say that the sub headline isnt in line with the article is in my mind, specious.
- GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
  Again you bring up an element - the t-shirt test - which has nothing to do with 6 months olds. There is an enormous developmental and cognitive difference between a 6 month old infant and a four year old child. An infant is extremely observant - this is well-documented - but is not making any judgements about those observations, other than "Am I fed, safe and comfortable". The implication that a six month old is judging others based on race is an astonishing and improbable claim so it's highly significant that that claim is not substantiated by the article. Newsweek was wildly skewing the science to sell magazines.
  - spooneybarger 17y ago
    again, back to the entire point... i think that the subheadline is inline with the content of the article. it isnt an attempt to change the meaning of the article, it is what the other was trying to imply. skewing science? yes. but you said you doubted that the author had anything to do with the 6 month making judgements line. i disagree. i think the entire article is trying to lead you to that idea. i'm not arguing that they didn't misrepresent things with that headline, i'm just saying that the entire article makes the same attempt at misrepresentation. the only original statement of yours i disagree with is: "The "racy" subheading of the article (which was also used for the HN submission) was probably not written by the author of the article" you then say: "The actual article does NOT say that children as 6 months "judge others" based on skin color. It DOES say that one study makes the rather banal observation that 6 month old babies can detect a difference between white skin and dark skin." which is true but beside the point in my mind because i think that the 6 month old children makes judgements based on race is something the article implies and wants the read to come away with.