I posted this on another thread regarding morality but I think it deserves more exposure. I think this might be good in love and relationship.
Not thorough and emotions are labeled as what they may not be because of researcher bias.
Punishment? Too much projected on simple preference for that which supports or sympathizes with a preference. Between zero and age three sub-stages of development cannot be compared to later ones and their related motivations.
The human infant is still gestating outside the mother's body for many months and in varying degrees separate from others of our 'kind' completely; not however from early damage caused to perceptual faculties by deprivation of instinctual needs at that critical level. Things like long period mother separation, separate sleep locations, premature feeding via inanimate means with substitite nourishment for human milk that is regimented, pacifiers, prescribed and purposeful ignoring of crying and other environmental insults. ALL of these immeasurable influences and more can mitigate healthy development of sense of security, affection spontanaety and innate morality.
These studies are based on observer assumptions and biases rooted in early influences on the clinicians THEMSELVES, that THEY accept as benign. They are NOT...
Dogs show similar behavior in that They're distrustful of people who are mean to their owners. The study doesn't prove much.Humans are just animals, and all animals have Basic Instincts. The human animals natural instinct is selfishness, and nothing proves that more than a baby . They learn to cry and fuss so their every little need is met. The human animal is also a social creature, and not an independent Hunter. our survival as a species was completely dependent on our ability to cooperate and share our resources. So perhaps that's the ultimate question of morality. do we satisfy our every need only to satisfy our selfish desires, or do we take others well being into consideration as well.