Theres allready several Studies about Human babies behavior.
The general consensus learned by those experiments in the studie is that Human babies are born altruistic no matter what skin color and everything later in behavior is learned or copied.
Are you referring to "Altruistic food sharing behavior by human infants after a hunger manipulation" by Barragan et alii?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58645-9Before jumping to conclusions I suggest a bit of caution:
Regarding the supposedly hungry babies willing to share food:
"We acknowledge that infants’ hunger at the individual level was not measured through blood glucose level or other assessments, which would be useful in drawing more precise inferences about “hunger” at an individual level."
Were they hungry or were they expecting the delayed feeding to occur soon?
"By giving away food to strangers, individuals may promote dyadic affiliation and
group cohesion and thereby species success within the dynamic environment of evolutionary adaptation. Some other mammals, including Callitrichidae, Canidae, Delphinidae, as well as birds, have evolved food sharing behavior with kin, notably parental feeding of the young, but they do not readily or spontaneously engage in this activity with non-kin or strangers."
I would like to point out that small groups of hunter-gatherers were the natural social environment for humans during most of the existence of the species.
In such an environment opportunites for babies to share with people who were not members of the group must have been very scarce.
everything later in behavior is learned or copied.
Like the behavioral changes during puberty?
Of course the social environment does have a huge effect on behavior. Pretty much no one is denying that. That does not mean that there are no genetic/hormonal influences on behavior afer infancy. Please take a look at the age/hormonal level curves and consider the enormous impact of these hormones on brain development.
Taking an interesting study and extending its result far beyond its claims is prone to produce overly bold conclusions not supported by the evidence. In this academic war between the "Blank Slate" social constructivists and the "it's all in your genes" factions such boldness is unfortunately common and exaggerated by the media looking for attention grabbing headlines. Don't let others draw conclusions for you. Take the time and read the studies completely and think about their limits. Trusting the opinion or summaries of others is very time-saving but sometimes also misleading.
Another study that could be interesting for you: "Three-month-olds, but not newborns prefer own-race faces"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/I think that a better title would have been "prefer own-group faces". I am highly sceptical that language is the determining factor here. Who is part of the group that the infant is surrounded by? In-group preferences tend to form much earlier than even basic language comprehension.
