Babies can tell if yer good or bad

Poor Hakim.

Babies: is there anything they can't do?

Control their bowels.

Get served in pubs.

Have an intelligent conversation.

Just like revol, really.

Hm, I forsee paedos using this ability to justify themselves....
"The baby didn't try to crawl away, it knows what's best!"

Etc, etc.

What is it meant to prove? What’s the hypothesis presented before the experiment?

It can’t be able nature vs nurture so is it just babies are smarter than we thought they were previously, we mature faster than we thought?

This is rubbish, babies love me!

I've seen a number of kids including my own shy away from some sketchy characters. I always wondered what they were picking up on. I have a feeling it might have to do with eye contact and certain facial expressions.

Like cats. Although cats use their rudimentary powers of perception to home in on the person in the room who doesn't like cats.

For sure. I've known about this for some time. Last baby I saw immediately started crying when I waved a knife in its face. It was not loving me.

this has been disproved by science hate monger

Fixed.

Only an American would think Jack finding a girl that didn't like him required some kind of targetting system.

I thought about that but went with it anyway.

The last girl that slept with Jack had much the same reasoning, be careful

iirc chomsky was asked somewhere (possibly in the debate with foucault) about the link between his linguistics and politics (there isn't one), but mused that perhaps morality was a structural faculty akin to language. flukey bastard.

Chomsky is a total pussy about the structure of the mind. He expertly derives proof for the inherence of grammar and language acquisition, then goes cold on evolutionary psychology, the one discipline that integrates and vindicates his work.
Morality is obviously, obviously an adaptation to the rigours of surviving in a social environment, where great gains can be derived from combination of labour, but pains must be taken to avoid the risk of exploitation by cheats.
I can't understand people who refuse to recognise the hallmarks of our evolutionary heritage that are as ubiquitous in the mind as they are in our physiology. (Physiology, of course, being the root basis of the mental faculties).

i don't know much about evolutionary psychology, most of what i've seen is shoddy just-so stories, but that may be because i don't follow the field and there's a whole industry of straight-to-press release 'science' drowning it out

Most of what's broadcast in the papers is horribly simplified and as you say, 'just-so-story'ish. The problem is that often when people make the crossover from animal sociobiology (an extremely careful science) to human evolutionary psychology, caution is thrown to the wind and wild extrapolations are made from flimsy evidence. The onus seems to be on coming up with a vaguely plausible theory that somehow fits the evidence rather than finding empirical ways to determine between rival hypotheses.
But aside from that, thus far the evolutionary perspective has proved itself by solving with ease problems that seem intractable when approached from a typical social science perspective.
Biology is history.

like what?

to me evolutuionary psychology only holds validity at a level that is so vague as to be next to useless ie pointing out how we may have developed our potential for emotions and morality. Like an analysis of football that take place on a level of examining the human leg.

Most evolutionary psychology is pseudo-scientific bullshit.

This experiment is interesting though... I wonder which animals would react in the same way. I mean I wonder if dogs or cats would, for example.

Wow, where to start...
What books have you read on the subject, I don't want to patronise / go over your head.

As a side note, your football analogy is actually the reverse of the situation - evolutionary biology is the unifying discipline that transcends the narrow, physiological 'how' to get to the 'why' of historical specificity and adaptation, the telos if you like.

isn't telos a pretty suspect notion to introduce into evolution? (insofar as evolution is a complex, nonlinear process the 'goal' can only be established retrospectively, the hypothesis found in the results?)

did some evolutionary psychology at A level, haven't read any books specifically on it.

But the 'why' is on a vague level, yeah, like looking at why we play football by talking about how we have two legs. And anything that seeks to locate the 'why' of human behaviour in evolution is either going to be vague to the point of meaninglessness or end up being reductionist shit. Also what telos is there in evolution?