Call me crazy but why should the kids that got good results from both adults differentiate between either adult. Obviously the kids that received information that did not pan out from one adult would prefer the adult that gave them information that did. The results seem perfectly obvious to me. The kids are not stupid or am I missing something here?
Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
51–60 of 122 posts
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you get your kids started with board-game type games? I have a 3yro and we just have "silly fun" with dice but I'm trying to figure out how to show him the "move N places forward" mechanic where N is the number on the die.
Try teaching them to count with dice. Roll the dice, choose/count N objects, and try to have them do the same.
My dad tried to teach me to count using dimes. I had some kind of learning dissabliity. I just couldn't remember how many dimes he would throw on the table, once he would take them away.
He started to get bored with my lack of progress. He then decided to play Magician. He would take a dime and, (Palm it--without me seeing), act like he's putting a dime into his mouth, and then pull it out his navel.
I was floored. He did it about ten times. My dad was truly amazing. "Dad--can I try it."
I can still picture the look of fear/doom on my dad's face when the dime didn't come out my belly button. I just asked him, "Where's the dime?"
I couldn't go to the bathroom without my parents for the next two days. They finally found the coin.
(I'm not passing this along as any warnings. I think parents are a bit too overprotective today. If I had a child I would defiantly use dice to teach counting. It's just a funny story I just recalled.)
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#53I was taught chess at age 6 by a national level player. While I have no doubt he never had to try hard to beat me, he never let me win. I was a far better player as a result. While I never won, I was never discouraged, because he would always point out where I had made good plays and where I could have done better, in a very interactive manner. This has got to be one of the best ways to learn.
My dad, while never a national level player, taught me chess, and likewise never let me win. The day that I beat him for the first time was an enormous triumph for me, and I'm happily imparting that to my own kids now. My 8 year old hadn't beat me yet, but his game has developed rapidly and that first win isn't very far off now. I'll offer him advice and help him understand why a given move was good or bad, but his m…
My father stopped playing chess with me once I began consistently beating him
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how can advice for winning a game be either bad or good if you will win whatever you do? That's the part I don't understand.
I think the point they were trying to make was that even though the kids had benefitted in earlier games from helpful advice and received no benefit when given unhelpful advice that by being allowed to then succeed in the rigged game the kids failed to acknowledge the value of the earlier advice. This shown by the kids not having a preference for the more helpful person. Though I think the conclusion they are drawing…
I still don't see it. How on earth would a kid recognize unhelpful advice if it still resulted in finding the object? The kid does not know the game is rigged. I think it is more likely the article has not fully explained the experiment. It would make me sad to think this was actually published.
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you only ever hear positive things from someone That rule seems overly strict perhaps? Like if someone only says positive things, but only occasionally, then there is still a signal there.
This. What happened to if you have nothing positive to say then keep shut? Positive praise, if rare, with neutral (or no) feedback otherwise, can have a similar effect.
Elon Musk is known for soliciting negative feedback, from friends.
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#56The President-elect of the United States is a Manchurian candidate, and HN is continuing to hold out its ban on political discussions. One would think that events of such magnitude would cause a reconsideration at the very least.
I'm not sure if you've posted this in the thread you intended to, but this is one is about the effects of "illusory success" in children.
The no-politics experiments ended a couple of days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13131251, but please don't comment unsubstantively on the topic like this.
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#57Idk seems like common sense.
whoa, downboats! I meant, why does it require a scientific study to understand that lying to small children deforms their worldview?
Every time there is a scientific study, someone responds saying it has confirmed their worldview, and is therefore pointless, betraying a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of scientific studies.
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point they were trying to make was that even though the kids had benefitted in earlier games from helpful advice and received no benefit when given unhelpful advice that by being allowed to then succeed in the rigged game the kids failed to acknowledge the value of the earlier advice. This shown by the kids not having a preference for the more helpful person. Though I think the conclusion they are drawing…
I still don't see it. How on earth would a kid recognize unhelpful advice if it still resulted in finding the object? The kid does not know the game is rigged. I think it is more likely the article has not fully explained the experiment. It would make me sad to think this was actually published.
Say the advice is "look behind the couch in the living room" and the object is later found on the kitchen counter. And the rigging consists of the experimenter asking the kid to get something unrelated from the kitchen, for example.
But yes, it's hard to determine whether this is how the experiment worked from the article. Unfortunately the actual paper at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096516... is paywalled in the usual way.
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#59One solution strategy that works very well from my experience is to ask them upfront whether they want to play "for real" or to play to learn. [edit: A third mode is "for (silly) fun" where everything is allowed.] This works for all ages... and for boardgames and physical games. It's their choice which mode they want to play in, and they trust and respect you more when given the choice. You treat them as a peer. You…
I am curious. Can you give a concrete example or two? Also, if not about a board game, where else would this apply?
The comment you're replying to described it as three choices, but you can also consider it a spectrum.
pure instruction -> teaching through playing -> friendly match -> competitive match
Let's use a card game as an example.
Pure instruction: Both players play with their cards visible to each other, and the teacher coaches rules and strategy as they play.
Teaching through playing: The hands are now private, but the teacher will tell the student if they're making bad moves and allow do-overs. The teacher may also set up situations for the student to take advantage of.
Friendly match: The teacher is playing against the student. No coaching is given. But, nit-picky procedural rules are not always followed. (You've set that card down and your hand left it, you can't pick it up again).
Competitive match: Rules are followed to the letter.
Re: Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
#60I have no idea how this made front-page. The title is inconsistent with the article title, and even the article title seems inflated to what it describes. As I understand it, the experimental group played a game they couldn't lose (rigged) and adults gave them "hints." The kids [correctly] identified that they weren't dependent on the adults' help in that group. However, there doesn't even seem to be a link to the ac…
Study link is at the bottom of the article; it just manages to look like an ad a bit, so easy to miss. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096516...