21–30 of 74 posts
So, kids are tattle tales? Did we need a study to tell us this?
No, tattle tales report rule breaking to third-party authorities. This is about direct intervention with the rule-breaker.
> Did we need a study to tell us this?
If we want to quantify and see how it varies across, say, the urban/rural divide (as this does with challenging), then, yes, certainly, but it's not this study.
The scenario descibed in the article isn't children challenging a non conformist for stepping out of line, or using a non standard technique, the children are correcting, perhaps helping, someone who appears to be getting something completely and utterly wrong.
Children teach others. They are learning through the teaching process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In modern schools, most any deviation from prescribed behavior is considered "rule breaking". A kid playing a game they way they want to play it, rather than the way they were taught to play it, is a disruptive kid that needs correction by peers or authority figures.
I've seen this! When the toddler plays an iPad game he likes to start by "failing" (choosing the wrong option, deliberately crashing a toy car, doing nothing at all) and watching what happens. It looks to me like he's basically experimenting - trying things and watching what happens. I generally just let him try and fail (and discuss what happened with him) and after about 1-2 minutes he tries the "right" thing becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In modern schools, most any deviation from prescribed behavior is considered "rule breaking". A kid playing a game they way they want to play it, rather than the way they were taught to play it, is a disruptive kid that needs correction by peers or authority figures.
I've seen this! When the toddler plays an iPad game he likes to start by "failing" (choosing the wrong option, deliberately crashing a toy car, doing nothing at all) and watching what happens. It looks to me like he's basically experimenting - trying things and watching what happens. I generally just let him try and fail (and discuss what happened with him) and after about 1-2 minutes he tries the "right" thing becau…
I saw the new James Bond movie last night and hated the ending. Not so much because it wasn't appropriate, as because they broke the rule. And not so much the rule, as the Prime Directive. My reaction felt like a kind of disgust. At the rule breakers. The same kind I'd feel at a cheater in a game. But of course there's no sense in which I'd been cheated. This kind of surprise is meat and potatoes to almost any fictio…
What rule? I didn't watch the movie nor do I know much about James Bond beyond watching a few of the films over the past few decades.
Tangentially related, I've looked for research in the past on what compels people to report rule breakers. I find it super interesting that people want to get other people in trouble over (often) things that don't negatively affect them, but instead are just "the rules".
I find it super interesting that people don't see a gradient here.
On one extreme, you have something like crossing the street against the light when nobody is at the intersection. On the other, you have all sorts of horrific things done to other people.
I'm pretty sure that the bulk of people in wealthy societies would intervene against "rule breakers" well before the horrific extreme. But where they start having qualms is interesting, and where you get all sorts of negative group behaviors, and that point will start to drift in response to how members of the group behave.
Tangentially related, I've looked for research in the past on what compels people to report rule breakers. I find it super interesting that people want to get other people in trouble over (often) things that don't negatively affect them, but instead are just "the rules".
I'll be the first to admit that it takes a little bit of conscious effort for me to look at another person leaving me in the dust and thinking "wow that's awesome. good for them".
Attempting to reframe my own comparative lack of success in terms of "they must have broken the rules or something" is a thing I reserve for competitive video gaming where the likelihood of an actual cheater is very high and the consequences of being wrong in my accusation are zero. Even if I totally delude myself into thinking everyone is using an aimbot and it has nothing to do with my shitty aim and I wind up the worst gamer on earth, I still have the rest of my life to work with.
In my personal experience, when you make your whole existence about winners breaking the rules and you being a relative loser because you follow all the rules, you turn into a monster.
I saw the new James Bond movie last night and hated the ending. Not so much because it wasn't appropriate, as because they broke the rule. And not so much the rule, as the Prime Directive. My reaction felt like a kind of disgust. At the rule breakers. The same kind I'd feel at a cheater in a game. But of course there's no sense in which I'd been cheated. This kind of surprise is meat and potatoes to almost any fictio…
What rule? I didn't watch the movie nor do I know much about James Bond beyond watching a few of the films over the past few decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In modern schools, most any deviation from prescribed behavior is considered "rule breaking". A kid playing a game they way they want to play it, rather than the way they were taught to play it, is a disruptive kid that needs correction by peers or authority figures.
I've seen this! When the toddler plays an iPad game he likes to start by "failing" (choosing the wrong option, deliberately crashing a toy car, doing nothing at all) and watching what happens. It looks to me like he's basically experimenting - trying things and watching what happens. I generally just let him try and fail (and discuss what happened with him) and after about 1-2 minutes he tries the "right" thing becau…