Reviews from Amazon

Reviews elsewhere on the web:

Paul Bloom

Descartes' Baby

Sometimes it's rather puzzling why people should believe what they do. In Descarte's Baby: How Child Development explains what makes us Human Paul Bloom looks at how we come by some of our thoughts and beliefs. He starts off by examining how children come to recognise the existence of other minds, followed by a look at how we make sense of objects around us - recognising whether or not they seem to be there for a purpose. There is also a discussion of how we get our sense of morality, and at when and why we might experience disgust. The book concludes with a look at our spiritual beliefs.

The most insightful chapter though is one on Art. Why should we ascribe great value to certain objects just because we are told that they are works of art. This is one of the most puzzling questions, but Bloom succeeds in finding a reasonable explanation - philosophy of art is clearly his area of expertise. I felt that the rest of the book didn't offer the same sort of insights, either from a philosophical or a child development point of view. But Bloom is an experienced writer, and puts forward his arguments in a very readable way, so if you're interested in why we believe what we do, and in particular in the way we think about art, then you should take a look at this book.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 288 pages
ISBN: 0465007864
Salesrank: 179689
Weight:0.66 lbs

Published: 2005 Basic Books

Amazon price $10.88

Marketplace:New from $2.00:Used from $1.14

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 288 pages
ISBN: 0099437945
Salesrank: 190567
Weight:0.53 lbs

Published: 2005 Arrow Books Ltd

Amazon price £6.74

Marketplace:New from £2.50:Used from £3.00

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Paperback 288 pages
ISBN: 0465007864
Salesrank: 56738
Weight:0.66 lbs

Published: 2005 Basic Books

Amazon price CDN$ 16.43

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 2.54:Used from CDN$ 5.57

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
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. How our dualist perspective, developed throughout our lives, profoundly influences our thoughts, feelings, and actions is the subject of this richly rewarding book.

Product Description

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. How our dualist perspective, developed throughout our lives, profoundly influences our thoughts, feelings, and actions is the subject of this richly rewarding book.

Child psychologists ****
Day-old baby boys respond to entertaining mobiles of objects, while girls fasten on faces or even images of faces. Apart from the gender distinction, this early clue of infant awareness indicates infants enter the world with a running start on coping with life. They may not be able to articulate their methods in dealing with the world, but certain fundamentals are laid down and built upon. The most basic orientation of all is "self" and "everything else". For Bloom, this is a new form of "dualism". Dualism is a philosophy attributed to 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes of "cogito ergo sum" fame. Cognitive scientists have rejected dualism in recent years, and Bloom's resurrection of the term may surprise some readers. The author explains at the outset that his version has deep evolutionary roots. These roots are seen in the way infants and children interact with the world. Living things, especially "Mum" and other family members, are quickly perceived as different from "objects". This awareness develops at various paces for different forms of interaction, but the result is that children are cognisant of human intent - the "soul" - fairly quickly and nearly effortlessly. They must be able to assess what other people will do and at some point develop understanding of the reasons for particular behaviours. This ability, a form of "mindreading", guides the child's response and personal behaviour. The "root" origins of this dualism, though favoured by Bloom, aren't really explained by this book. They're not even speculated on to any extent. Bloom is at pains to reach a wide audience for a variety of reasons. The primary readership appears to be more new parents and less his academic colleagues. He works in his own family, particularly his sons. The two boys have the advantages of being both different in age and in temperament. He's not beyond a small shock when it suits, as when he claims one son had transgressed every "sin" but "lust" by the age of four. He examines the characters of "Star Trek", especially the "logical" Mr Spock and the emotionless android "Data", to compare with emotional humans. Other film and TV series characters are offered as examples of many aspects of our feelings and behaviours. The expression of emotions, which bloom examines at some length, become indicators of the human possession of a "soul". It is Bloom's dealing with the "soul" that erodes this book's value. Part of that broad audience, [parents all ?], will be various types of "the faithful". These folks are keen to arrive, soul intact, in some afterlife. They wish it even more for their children [except when the latter misbehave]. To deny this possibility would see the book languish on store shelves. Bloom dances about the question of the afterlife by declaring that the "physical soul" [whatever that is] cannot survive death. The door remains wide open for other forms of "soul" - simply fill in your favoured definition. The point of this dodging is that Bloom doesn't want to define "soul", while wishing to retain its use as shorthand for the vast panoply of mental experiences humans have in life. So, what happens to those experiences after death, the author leaves to reader prejudice and interpretation. It's a difficult term to deal with in any circumstance. Bloom fails to either clarify or simplify the task. Although Bloom has examined a wealth of research and non-academic works to assemble a coherent package, the book remains a shining example of "pop" psychology - especially child psychology. While there is a great deal of good information in this book, there are serious gaps that aren't even clearly indicated. He understands clinical research and its value, but once more a scholar pandering to a limited audience relies on research performed solely on a single society. Yet, he blithely stresses the "universality" of behavioural characteristics. Children's attitudes about gods and the afterlife may be universal, but we can't know until we've queried more kids - especially those in different cultures. Even in cultures as near as Europe, there are distinct differences in the way children view some of the topics Bloom addresses. It's a pity he didn't read about them. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Child psychologists ****

Day-old baby boys respond to entertaining mobiles of objects, while girls fasten on faces or even images of faces. Apart from the gender distinction, this early clue of infant awareness indicates infants enter the world with a running start on coping with life. They may not be able to articulate their methods in dealing with the world, but certain fundamentals are laid down and built upon. The most basic orientation of all is "self" and "everything else". For Bloom, this is a new form of "dualism".

Dualism is a philosophy attributed to 17th Century French philosopher Rene Descartes of "cogito ergo sum" fame. Cognitive scientists have rejected dualism in recent years, and Bloom's resurrection of the term may surprise some readers. The author explains at the outset that his version has deep evolutionary roots. These roots are seen in the way infants and children interact with the world. Living things, especially "Mum" and other family members, are quickly perceived as different from "objects". This awareness develops at various paces for different forms of interaction, but the result is that children are cognisant of human intent - the "soul" - fairly quickly and nearly effortlessly. They must be able to assess what other people will do and at some point develop understanding of the reasons for particular behaviours. This ability, a form of "mindreading", guides the child's response and personal behaviour. The "root" origins of this dualism, though favoured by Bloom, aren't really explained by this book. They're not even speculated on to any extent.

Bloom is at pains to reach a wide audience for a variety of reasons. The primary readership appears to be more new parents and less his academic colleagues. He works in his own family, particularly his sons. The two boys have the advantages of being both different in age and in temperament. He's not beyond a small shock when it suits, as when he claims one son had transgressed every "sin" but "lust" by the age of four. He examines the characters of "Star Trek", especially the "logical" Mr Spock and the emotionless android "Data", to compare with emotional humans. Other film and TV series characters are offered as examples of many aspects of our feelings and behaviours. The expression of emotions, which bloom examines at some length, become indicators of the human possession of a "soul".

It is Bloom's dealing with the "soul" that erodes this book's value. Part of that broad audience, [parents all ?], will be various types of "the faithful". These folks are keen to arrive, soul intact, in some afterlife. They wish it even more for their children [except when the latter misbehave]. To deny this possibility would see the book languish on store shelves. Bloom dances about the question of the afterlife by declaring that the "physical soul" [whatever that is] cannot survive death. The door remains wide open for other forms of "soul" - simply fill in your favoured definition. The point of this dodging is that Bloom doesn't want to define "soul", while wishing to retain its use as shorthand for the vast panoply of mental experiences humans have in life. So, what happens to those experiences after death, the author leaves to reader prejudice and interpretation. It's a difficult term to deal with in any circumstance. Bloom fails to either clarify or simplify the task.

Although Bloom has examined a wealth of research and non-academic works to assemble a coherent package, the book remains a shining example of "pop" psychology - especially child psychology. While there is a great deal of good information in this book, there are serious gaps that aren't even clearly indicated. He understands clinical research and its value, but once more a scholar pandering to a limited audience relies on research performed solely on a single society. Yet, he blithely stresses the "universality" of behavioural characteristics. Children's attitudes about gods and the afterlife may be universal, but we can't know until we've queried more kids - especially those in different cultures. Even in cultures as near as Europe, there are distinct differences in the way children view some of the topics Bloom addresses. It's a pity he didn't read about them. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

From baby steps to leaping to conclusions ***
In Descartes' Baby, Paul Bloom engagingly writes about research that shows babies are more sophisticated than we usually give them credit for. At a very early age, babies are aware of the constancy of objects, that appearances may be deceptive, and that other people may hold false beliefs. The problem is what Bloom makes of this. 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.

From baby steps to leaping to conclusions ***

In Descartes' Baby, Paul Bloom engagingly writes about research that shows babies are more sophisticated than we usually give them credit for. At a very early age, babies are aware of the constancy of objects, that appearances may be deceptive, and that other people may hold false beliefs. The problem is what Bloom makes of this.

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.

Babies and the Intentional Stance ****
About 20 years ago, philosopher Daniel Dennett started talking about what he calls the "intentional stance." The intentional stance is the ability, prevelant in humans and animals to a lesser extent, to look at other beings as intentional agents with goals and desires. Dennett explained how th intentional stance could easily be viewed as an evolutionary adaptation - allowing those who can adapt it to predict others behaviors, understand language as a thing communicating inner states, etc. In this book, Bloom is basically taking the same idea, showing the science that backs it up, and applying it to psychology. Babies, Bloom writes, seem born with the ability to see others as agents, differentiate between animate and inanimate objects, and feel empathy ("step into others' shoes"). Towards this end, Bloom cites innumerable studies done with babies, infants, and young children. Most of the studies on babies and infants measures whether the baby looks longer at certain images than others to see which are more interesting and (it is hoped) unusual. Fior instance, in order to see whether babies can 'grasp' the idea of objects' solidity, babies were shwon a picture, first, of a mug being pulled where the handle AND the base move in the same direction at the same speed and, second, a mug being pulled where the handle and the base travel in the same direction at different speeds. The babies tended to look longer at the second image, leading to the conclusion that they see the second as more 'curious' and unusual. As other reviewers menktion, these experiments can be dicey and can lend themselves to a few different interpretations. Be that as it may, studies of children are more straightforward, as they consist of children being asked questions and to perform tasks. Needless to say, all the experiments with children support strongly the idea that children are quite good at the intentional stance. What seems to clinch it is the studies involving children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD). ASD children, when tested, fail in every case whereby experimenters ask that the intentional stance be applied to other beings. From attempts to find out whether ASD kids feel empathy with those in pain to cases of whether ASD kids see God anthropomorphically, Bloom shows that ASD simply destroys the ability to 'read minds,' an activity non-ASD kids seem to do naturally. I am taking one star off because some chapters seem so loosely related to the authors thesis that they seem to impair the book's effectiveness. The chapter on the evolutionary origins of disgust, for instance, is interesting but hardly applicable to exploration of kids ability to see other minds as other minds. To finish, the chapter on how children see God is particularly interesting, in light of many recent attempts to explain religion naturalistically. (See my review of Dennett's "Breaking the Spell") In their young years, children seem to see God as a figure with human qualities (both phyically and spiritually). Even studies done with adults show that adults tend to apply human traits to god even when they "know" that God is omniscient and far from human. Bloom's take? Religion is (a) an attempt to explain the duality between the physical world and the mental world; and (b) an extentsion of our natural ability to apply the intentional stance by creation of a god figure to whose mind we can attribute human traits writ large. interesting book all around. Bloom is a good writer and provides a good balance between clarity and profundity. Anyone who enjoys books exploring how biology affects the mind will enjoy this one as well.

Babies and the Intentional Stance ****

About 20 years ago, philosopher Daniel Dennett started talking about what he calls the "intentional stance." The intentional stance is the ability, prevelant in humans and animals to a lesser extent, to look at other beings as intentional agents with goals and desires. Dennett explained how th intentional stance could easily be viewed as an evolutionary adaptation - allowing those who can adapt it to predict others behaviors, understand language as a thing communicating inner states, etc.

In this book, Bloom is basically taking the same idea, showing the science that backs it up, and applying it to psychology. Babies, Bloom writes, seem born with the ability to see others as agents, differentiate between animate and inanimate objects, and feel empathy ("step into others' shoes").

Towards this end, Bloom cites innumerable studies done with babies, infants, and young children. Most of the studies on babies and infants measures whether the baby looks longer at certain images than others to see which are more interesting and (it is hoped) unusual. Fior instance, in order to see whether babies can 'grasp' the idea of objects' solidity, babies were shwon a picture, first, of a mug being pulled where the handle AND the base move in the same direction at the same speed and, second, a mug being pulled where the handle and the base travel in the same direction at different speeds. The babies tended to look longer at the second image, leading to the conclusion that they see the second as more 'curious' and unusual.

As other reviewers menktion, these experiments can be dicey and can lend themselves to a few different interpretations. Be that as it may, studies of children are more straightforward, as they consist of children being asked questions and to perform tasks. Needless to say, all the experiments with children support strongly the idea that children are quite good at the intentional stance. What seems to clinch it is the studies involving children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD). ASD children, when tested, fail in every case whereby experimenters ask that the intentional stance be applied to other beings. From attempts to find out whether ASD kids feel empathy with those in pain to cases of whether ASD kids see God anthropomorphically, Bloom shows that ASD simply destroys the ability to 'read minds,' an activity non-ASD kids seem to do naturally.

I am taking one star off because some chapters seem so loosely related to the authors thesis that they seem to impair the book's effectiveness. The chapter on the evolutionary origins of disgust, for instance, is interesting but hardly applicable to exploration of kids ability to see other minds as other minds.

To finish, the chapter on how children see God is particularly interesting, in light of many recent attempts to explain religion naturalistically. (See my review of Dennett's "Breaking the Spell") In their young years, children seem to see God as a figure with human qualities (both phyically and spiritually). Even studies done with adults show that adults tend to apply human traits to god even when they "know" that God is omniscient and far from human. Bloom's take? Religion is (a) an attempt to explain the duality between the physical world and the mental world; and (b) an extentsion of our natural ability to apply the intentional stance by creation of a god figure to whose mind we can attribute human traits writ large.

interesting book all around. Bloom is a good writer and provides a good balance between clarity and profundity. Anyone who enjoys books exploring how biology affects the mind will enjoy this one as well.

Non-existence of the soul ****
The name of this rather fascinating book is somewhat misleading: there is not too much in this book about child's psychology and a lot about psychology in general. Mr. Bloom, who is evidently a professional psychologist himself, created a very readable fusion of psychology, evolutionary biology and great multitude of historical and scientific facts. When reading I could not stop recollecting myself as a child and juxtaposing the facts from the book with episodes from my childhood. For example, Mr. Bloom describes kids' imagining of God. As per one of the studies, they think that God is a human like creature with a voice and a face. Many kids in my kindergarten shared their vision of God in similar terms, but I remember a debate (if you can call it that) between other kids and me when we were arguing if God was a man or a woman. For some reason, the majority of kids were absolutely convinced that God was a man even though they could not explain why. The vision of God was changing with age - when I was a student, my professor of a set theory told me that God was infinity in its most abstract version. He was absolutely serious about that. The book is practically infested with a great deal of facts and citations, which eloquently illustrate author's points. I have to admit that the author reminds me of Borges in this regard, whom he also mentions when describing some aspects of how human memory functions. Some of such illustrations are quite unusual. For example, when discussing the art and its role in human life, Mr. Bloom mentions a weird habit of Aristotle Onassis to have his barstools upholstered with the scrota of killer whales. Many might find it unusual at least and disgusting at most but it does perfectly illustrate how different human beings are in demonstration of status and power. The same is applicable to the description of Goya's painting SATURN DEVOURING HIS SON. After I read about Mr. Bloom's experience when he was admiring this painting in Madrid, I found reproduction of this artwork in the Internet and become very puzzled of how can it be anyhow enjoyable. The last chapter of the book left me disappointed. Not because of the text itself, which was a very good reading throughout the whole book, but because of Mr. Bloom's verdict regarding factual non-existence of the soul. It is really hard to deal with such an approach, especially when formulated by a competent scientist like Mr. Bloom. I wonder how Mr. Bloom himself is dealing with this shocking discrepancy. He might be explaining it in his following book. Hopefully.

Non-existence of the soul ****

The name of this rather fascinating book is somewhat misleading: there is not too much in this book about child's psychology and a lot about psychology in general. Mr. Bloom, who is evidently a professional psychologist himself, created a very readable fusion of psychology, evolutionary biology and great multitude of historical and scientific facts.

When reading I could not stop recollecting myself as a child and juxtaposing the facts from the book with episodes from my childhood. For example, Mr. Bloom describes kids' imagining of God. As per one of the studies, they think that God is a human like creature with a voice and a face. Many kids in my kindergarten shared their vision of God in similar terms, but I remember a debate (if you can call it that) between other kids and me when we were arguing if God was a man or a woman. For some reason, the majority of kids were absolutely convinced that God was a man even though they could not explain why. The vision of God was changing with age - when I was a student, my professor of a set theory told me that God was infinity in its most abstract version. He was absolutely serious about that.

The book is practically infested with a great deal of facts and citations, which eloquently illustrate author's points. I have to admit that the author reminds me of Borges in this regard, whom he also mentions when describing some aspects of how human memory functions. Some of such illustrations are quite unusual. For example, when discussing the art and its role in human life, Mr. Bloom mentions a weird habit of Aristotle Onassis to have his barstools upholstered with the scrota of killer whales. Many might find it unusual at least and disgusting at most but it does perfectly illustrate how different human beings are in demonstration of status and power. The same is applicable to the description of Goya's painting SATURN DEVOURING HIS SON. After I read about Mr. Bloom's experience when he was admiring this painting in Madrid, I found reproduction of this artwork in the Internet and become very puzzled of how can it be anyhow enjoyable.

The last chapter of the book left me disappointed. Not because of the text itself, which was a very good reading throughout the whole book, but because of Mr. Bloom's verdict regarding factual non-existence of the soul. It is really hard to deal with such an approach, especially when formulated by a competent scientist like Mr. Bloom. I wonder how Mr. Bloom himself is dealing with this shocking discrepancy. He might be explaining it in his following book. Hopefully.

Dualism is for Babies *****
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.

Dualism is for Babies *****

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.

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.

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.

Easy to read ***
This book is generally easy and entertaining to read. Although I am not sure how scientific the scientific tests are as quoted in the book, the pool of samples seem to be inadequate to represent a general population - the observation on babies is interesting and is definitely hard to justify, but, for example, to claim that most adult would have thought a ball shooting out of a C-shaped tube is going to have a circular projection is rather unbelievable.

Easy to read ***

This book is generally easy and entertaining to read.

Although I am not sure how scientific the scientific tests are as quoted in the book, the pool of samples seem to be inadequate to represent a general population - the observation on babies is interesting and is definitely hard to justify, but, for example, to claim that most adult would have thought a ball shooting out of a C-shaped tube is going to have a circular projection is rather unbelievable.

witty, entertaining, interesting *****
Engaging and funny cognitive scientist Paul Bloom's second book is a fascinating read. In it, he argues that we are wired to view the world as containing both bodies and souls. Bloom argues convincingly that it is for this reason, that even when the idea of psychophysical dualism clashes with our intellectual understanding of bodies and souls, we still maintain vestiges of a belief in the immaterial soul. His discussions of a huge range of fascinating issues make this book a must-read. Descartes' Baby is incredibly fun to read, and is smattered with bits of humor and amusing anecdotes about real children and adults. Indeed, one of the most humorous moments in this lively book is Bloom's account of a neuroscientist colleague's culinarily-motivated search for animals without a certain neural structure, because, he reasoned, animals without this certain structure surely didn't have consciousness and therefore we safe to eat. Another strength of the book is Bloom's treatment of disgust. His view is both interesting and nuanced and falls naturally from his argument that we are intuitive dualists at heart. Other high points are his discussion of art and forgery, and his quite funny discussion of humor. It's not often that I read nonfiction. Normally I find it either too pedantic or too technical and narrow in scope to appeal to an outsider. One of the tremendous strengths of this book is that someone without training in developmental psychology or philosophy can follow it with ease, while still finding it intellectually satisfying. This book is truly a gem -- both entertaining and important. It's a must-read for anyone who has ever wondered about human nature.

witty, entertaining, interesting *****

Engaging and funny cognitive scientist Paul Bloom's second book is a fascinating read. In it, he argues that we are wired to view the world as containing both bodies and souls. Bloom argues convincingly that it is for this reason, that even when the idea of psychophysical dualism clashes with our intellectual understanding of bodies and souls, we still maintain vestiges of a belief in the immaterial soul. His discussions of a huge range of fascinating issues make this book a must-read.

Descartes' Baby is incredibly fun to read, and is smattered with bits of humor and amusing anecdotes about real children and adults. Indeed, one of the most humorous moments in this lively book is Bloom's account of a neuroscientist colleague's culinarily-motivated search for animals without a certain neural structure, because, he reasoned, animals without this certain structure surely didn't have consciousness and therefore we safe to eat.

Another strength of the book is Bloom's treatment of disgust. His view is both interesting and nuanced and falls naturally from his argument that we are intuitive dualists at heart. Other high points are his discussion of art and forgery, and his quite funny discussion of humor.

It's not often that I read nonfiction. Normally I find it either too pedantic or too technical and narrow in scope to appeal to an outsider. One of the tremendous strengths of this book is that someone without training in developmental psychology or philosophy can follow it with ease, while still finding it intellectually satisfying.

This book is truly a gem -- both entertaining and important. It's a must-read for anyone who has ever wondered about human nature.

A lively, entertaining, interesting read *****
Engaging and funny cognitive scientist Paul Bloom's second book is fascinating. In it, he argues that we are wired to view the world as containing both bodies and souls. Bloom argues convincingly that it is for this reason, that even when the idea of psychophysical dualism clashes with our intellectual understanding of bodies and souls, we still maintain vestiges of a belief in the immaterial soul. His discussions of a huge range of fascinating issues make this book a must-read. Descartes' Baby is not just informative, but is smattered with bits of humor and amusing anecdotes about real children and adults. Indeed, one of the most humorous moments in this lively book is Bloom's account of a neuroscientist colleague's culinarily-motivated search for animals without a certain neural structure, because, he reasoned, animals without this certain structure surely didn't have consciousness and therefore we safe to eat. Another strength of the book is Bloom's treatment of disgust. His view is both interesting and nuanced and falls naturally from his argument that we are intuitive dualists at heart. Other high points are his discussion of art and forgery, and his quite funny discussion of humor. It's not often that I read nonfiction. Normally I find it either too pedantic or too technical and narrow in scope to appeal to an outsider. One of the tremendous strengths of this book is that someone without training in developmental psychology or philosophy can follow it with ease, while still finding it intellectually satisfying. This book is truly a gem -- both entertaining and important. It's a must-read for anyone who has ever wondered about human nature.

A lively, entertaining, interesting read *****

Engaging and funny cognitive scientist Paul Bloom's second book is fascinating. In it, he argues that we are wired to view the world as containing both bodies and souls. Bloom argues convincingly that it is for this reason, that even when the idea of psychophysical dualism clashes with our intellectual understanding of bodies and souls, we still maintain vestiges of a belief in the immaterial soul. His discussions of a huge range of fascinating issues make this book a must-read.

Descartes' Baby is not just informative, but is smattered with bits of humor and amusing anecdotes about real children and adults. Indeed, one of the most humorous moments in this lively book is Bloom's account of a neuroscientist colleague's culinarily-motivated search for animals without a certain neural structure, because, he reasoned, animals without this certain structure surely didn't have consciousness and therefore we safe to eat.

This book is truly a gem -- both entertaining and important. It's a must-read for anyone who has ever wondered about human nature.

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.

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.

Embarrassing, disgusting, and immoral *****
Paul Bloom explains how it is that humans come to feel embarrassment, disgust, or moral revulsion (among other things). He argues that these feeling can be traced to our earliest development, in which we learn about the properties of objects and other people. These parallel developments interact to result in special feelings towards certain objects such as great works of art or decaying meat. Although feelings of embarrassment and disgust may not be limited to humans, he argues that without even negative emotions and feelings, we would not be fully human. The book is full of witty and fascinating anecdotes, as well as thought-provoking questions. The first chapters lay the groundwork by reviewing recent findings about the development of infants. The book steadily gains in interest as these findings form the groundwork for intriguing discussions of emotion, morality, and religion. Although the author is apparently a professor at Yale, the book can be read by anyone who is interested in children or in how we end up the way we are. In fact, as I got further and further into it, I could not put it down.

Embarrassing, disgusting, and immoral *****

Paul Bloom explains how it is that humans come to feel embarrassment, disgust, or moral revulsion (among other things). He argues that these feeling can be traced to our earliest development, in which we learn about the properties of objects and other people. These parallel developments interact to result in special feelings towards certain objects such as great works of art or decaying meat. Although feelings of embarrassment and disgust may not be limited to humans, he argues that without even negative emotions and feelings, we would not be fully human.

The book is full of witty and fascinating anecdotes, as well as thought-provoking questions. The first chapters lay the groundwork by reviewing recent findings about the development of infants. The book steadily gains in interest as these findings form the groundwork for intriguing discussions of emotion, morality, and religion.

Although the author is apparently a professor at Yale, the book can be read by anyone who is interested in children or in how we end up the way we are. In fact, as I got further and further into it, I could not put it down.

A fantastic book! *****
Engaging and funny cognitive scientist Paul Bloom's second book is a fascinating read. In it, he argues that we are wired to view the world as containing both bodies and souls. Bloom argues convincingly that it is for this reason, that even when the idea of psychophysical dualism clashes with our intellectual understanding of bodies and souls, we still maintain vestiges of a belief in the immaterial soul. His discussions of a huge range of fascinating issues make this book a must-read. Descartes' Baby is incredibly fun to read, and is smattered with bits of humor and amusing anecdotes about real children and adults. Indeed, one of the most humorous moments in this lively book is Bloom's account of a neuroscientist colleague's culinarily-motivated search for animals without a certain neural structure, because, he reasoned, animals without this certain structure surely didn't have consciousness and therefore we safe to eat. Another strength of the book is Bloom's treatment of disgust. His view is both interesting and nuanced and falls naturally from his argument that we are intuitive dualists at heart. Other high points are his discussion of art and forgery, and his quite funny discussion of humor. It's not often that I read nonfiction. Normally I find it either too pedantic or too technical and narrow in scope to appeal to an outsider. One of the tremendous strengths of this book is that someone without training in developmental psychology or philosophy can follow it with ease, while still finding it intellectually satisfying. This book is truly a gem -- both entertaining and important. It's a must-read for anyone who has ever wondered about human nature.

A fantastic book! *****

This book is truly a gem -- both entertaining and important. It's a must-read for anyone who has ever wondered about human nature.

Fascinating, Lively and Fun Read *****
This is a Terrific book. It is written in a lively, accessible style, yet says some serious things about what it is to be human. The author's main point is that we have two very different ways of viewing and thinking about reality: in terms of the physical world of material bodies, and in terms of the social world of people. He suggests that these two viewpoints often collide in interesting and surprising ways, to unique effect, to explain such things about human nature as: Why slapstick humor is funny; why we consider some things (such as certain sex acts, for example) to be disgusting; the nature of human morality and why our 'moral circle' has expanded through history; the ubiquity of religious thought; and other things fundamental to being human. To support his explanations, he draws extensively on recent findings in developmental psychology, showing us that how children think and develop tells us a lot about human nature. This is a serious, intelligent book that makes some deep, genuinely creative new insights into the complex nature of human psychology. If you're interested in human nature, child development, or cognitive science, you will find this book full of fascinating information and provocative ideas. Finally, it is just plain fun reading!

Fascinating, Lively and Fun Read *****

This is a Terrific book. It is written in a lively, accessible style, yet says some serious things about what it is to be human. The author's main point is that we have two very different ways of viewing and thinking about reality: in terms of the physical world of material bodies, and in terms of the social world of people. He suggests that these two viewpoints often collide in interesting and surprising ways, to unique effect, to explain such things about human nature as: Why slapstick humor is funny; why we consider some things (such as certain sex acts, for example) to be disgusting; the nature of human morality and why our 'moral circle' has expanded through history; the ubiquity of religious thought; and other things fundamental to being human. To support his explanations, he draws extensively on recent findings in developmental psychology, showing us that how children think and develop tells us a lot about human nature. This is a serious, intelligent book that makes some deep, genuinely creative new insights into the complex nature of human psychology.

If you're interested in human nature, child development, or cognitive science, you will find this book full of fascinating information and provocative ideas. Finally, it is just plain fun reading!

Superb-Written with great clarity, grace and intelligence *****
This is an amazing book. It is written with great clarity, insight, and humor while at the same time preserving scientific and conceptual rigor-a very rare combination indeed. How often is one lucky enough to pick up a book covering complex issues in science and philosophy and find that it is so riveting that one stays up all night reading it? Bloom addresses one of the deepest and most profound issues of what makes us human, our tendencies to see others as comprised of utterly distinct bodies and minds, that is the dualism of Descartes. While modern philosophers and cognitive scientists may largely reject dualism, the rest of us , and even those philosophers and scientists in their less reflective moments, embrace dualism so completely that it colors every aspect of our interpretations of others and of their activities. Bloom's book brilliantly shows how this dualism is not some late emerging impression made by one's culture or society, instead it is a fundamental part of how our minds are built, and can be seen in rudimentary forms even in infancy. He explains how it emerges and why it makes sense that we should all be endowed with this assumption, even if it is in many ways severely misleading. He shows how our dualism explains an extraordinary range of otherwise puzzling phenomena in domains as diverse as disgust, art forgery, humor, religion and altruism. Bloom is a leading researcher on the development of children's minds who is also an award winning writer; and this book shows how these two skills can mutually reinforce each other in ways that create fascinating, enlightening, and engaging reading. Any one interested in children, in cognitive science, or simply in human nature, will find themselves adoring this book. This book is science writing at its very best.

Superb-Written with great clarity, grace and intelligence *****

This is an amazing book. It is written with great clarity, insight, and humor while at the same time preserving scientific and conceptual rigor-a very rare combination indeed. How often is one lucky enough to pick up a book covering complex issues in science and philosophy and find that it is so riveting that one stays up all night reading it?
Bloom addresses one of the deepest and most profound issues of what makes us human, our tendencies to see others as comprised of utterly distinct bodies and minds, that is the dualism of Descartes. While modern philosophers and cognitive scientists may largely reject dualism, the rest of us , and even those philosophers and scientists in their less reflective moments, embrace dualism so completely that it colors every aspect of our interpretations of others and of their activities.
Bloom's book brilliantly shows how this dualism is not some late emerging impression made by one's culture or society, instead it is a fundamental part of how our minds are built, and can be seen in rudimentary forms even in infancy. He explains how it emerges and why it makes sense that we should all be endowed with this assumption, even if it is in many ways severely misleading. He shows how our dualism explains an extraordinary range of otherwise puzzling phenomena in domains as diverse as disgust, art forgery, humor, religion and altruism. Bloom is a leading researcher on the development of children's minds who is also an award winning writer; and this book shows how these two skills can mutually reinforce each other in ways that create fascinating, enlightening, and engaging reading. Any one interested in children, in cognitive science, or simply in human nature, will find themselves adoring this book. This book is science writing at its very best.