3 ms·

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 betwe

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.

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.