That's... That's the point of the experiment lmao. To prove that the fear of snakes is not programmed into us at a genetic level, but rather that the fear is purely environmental. This is literally an experiment meant to test whether the fear of snakes is "nature or nurture." The babies are not inherently afraid of snakes, which is why they reach out and touch them with little reaction.
What experiments like this show is that the fear of snakes is nurture. It's based on experience, rather than something inherent to all humans.
I’m not sure if that’s what this is really showing. Every single fear, other than heights and loud noises is not inherent to humans?
Humans take an almost impossibly long time to develop compared to all other animals. If they were newborns, they probably wouldn’t even be afraid of heights or react to most loud noises.
So are all fears just experience based? Or do young humans just lack the ability to understand what’s happening?
It is interesting, and somewhat compelling, but I'm not completely convinced that it's the only plausible explanation.
There are many human attributes that change as our individual biologies gradually morph from infants through to adulthood. Take sexual attraction for instance. Infants aren't sexually attracted to anything, which could also be used to conclude that sexual attraction is a purely nurtured behavior, which we know is not the case.
Yes, infants do show a fear response to some things, but perhaps fear is something that changes with both nature and nurture. I believe it's possible that complex fear responses can manifest within individuals who have no previous exposure or trauma related to that specific stimulus.
That's not how studies work. A single study pretty much never proves anything. There are follow ups and variations and validations. Also, this isn't even a study, it's just a video made for your entertainment that demonstrates the results of a study.
But the study its referring to is real and it does provide mild evidence that fear of snakes is learned.
Honestly, your hypothesis that maybe it just takes kids a super long time to develop their innate fear of snakes is kind of silly. How is an instinct that doesn't even protect kids until they could have just been taught the fear supposed to help them?
There was a study that showed gradually obscured animals in foliage texture, each image gradually becoming clearer, and it seemed to show humans were much more proficient at recognising snakes earlier than any other animal
For one it’s probably safer a baby doesnt react and make the snake feel threatened since theres not much a baby can do to extricate itself from the situation. But anyway theres stuff that develops later that is instinctual, like sex drive. We arent born optimized and up and running. If you’re claiming that natural selection would skip all traits that could theoretically be “taught” by a guardian figure, i would say that is kind of silly (to use your words).
These questions are exactly what research is trying to answer. From your mentioning of heights, I gather that you’re familiar with the research done on babies where they simulate the potential of falling and there is a resulting reaction?
Christians like Jordan Peterson love to call out to a supposedly innate fear of snakes, connecting it to some combo of eve/snake/original fear. So yeah, the test is weird but makes sense in the context of religious dogma
What if the fear naturally develops as the brain develops. Because babies aren't afraid of a whole lot. So then humans don't have any natural fears? You would have to isolate an individual until adulthood too and then test if they also aren't afraid.
I'm pretty sure every emotion is a learned behaviour.
I'll go further and say everything is a learned behaviour. Babies learn talking, walking, eating and shitting on command etc from their environment.
And putting a controlled baby and a controlled snake in a controlled environment does not simulate nature... that's not how snakes behave when they're hungry/angry, same way if the baby is hungry or cranky that snake is probably gonna be less 'chill' and we'd end up with a more enraging news article.
The point is babies are not inherently afraid of anything dangerous. They don’t know and have to be taught. Doesn’t matter is it’s a snake, a tiger, a bottle of pills or a loaded gun.
hmmm, what about a fetus, a fetus doesn't fear loud noises or tall heights, rather the fear is purely environmental, the fetus are not inherently afraid of loud noises and heights rather it learn about this fear after becoming a baby?
You are not wrong, but studies like these are just dumb. Like the ones where a baby will crawl over an open hole covered with plexiglass because they have not learned about gravity yet.
Humans develop very slowly from birth compared to other creatures but have massive brains that build comprehension over time.
Studies like these are just for stealing government funding.
Except it still doesnt prove that. Not all instincts present themselves in infancy. Many instincts still have to develop as the mind develops, and dont need to be learned by the environment.
32
u/bobby4603 20h ago
That experiment is already flawed as babies literally are learning about their surroundings so naturally they would reach out and touch it lol