The two-frame test
-
Adulthood doubles the frames: add one with no bench, and one with someone putting a bench in front of the child. The conclusion doesn't change: it's the kid's fault for tripping over the bench. We just collectively ignore that the kid was fine until someone put a bench in the way.
Now we need another frame with you putting that person in the frame!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Insufficient data!
Was the bench around a corner or jutting out? Was the boy part of a crowd that obscured the bench? Is the bench somehow camouflaged? Is it static and stationary?
Is the boy fully sighted? Is it dark? Did someone distract him? Was he panicked by someone? Could he have deliberately run into it?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Wait, some are born with what would lead to Narcisstic personality disorder?
-
Wait, some are born with what would lead to Narcisstic personality disorder?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Ugh, no.One can't argue that personality disorders are inherently genetic. You can argue there's a significant genetic component, but to think that someone is just going to be a narcissist despite how you would rear them is... well, bioessentialism.
Edit oh wait sorry. You asked you didn't argue. Everyone is born like that, yeah, like everyone is born without object permanence. Then you develop it very early on. Just like you develop a sense of self-criticism as your cognition grows. Some just never do.
-
This post did not contain any content.
There's a calvin and hobbes comic where calvin trips on a rock and yells out "who put this rock here?" or something along those lines. Spent like 15 minutes looking for it but couldn't find it
-
If you find ths intresting, research "Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development" most people only achieve conventional moral development but many remain at pre-conventional until 40+ years old.
One of the topics for child development (Which covers conception to death) I learned.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Mh. I think stage 5 and 6 are purely individual. In the end, morals depend heavily on cultural context. And morals serving morality only are hypocritical. Nothing good about someone killing themselves because they couldn't save someone. And even this example depends on how close they were. Yet asians, who are culturally closer knit to their group and with more focus on family honor, often see that different.
-
I have never in my life been presented with a scenario such as a child tripping over a bench and thought that the bench was in the wrong place.
Kids are ALWAYS in the wrong place, and usually at the wrong speed.
Literally today, my son (3) walked face-first into a freestanding sign. He meant to walk down a hallway to where I was, but instead headbutted a large sign about his height that was flush against a wall. It was not away from the wall, it was not overhanging the hallway at all. Nevertheless, he got distracted well enough to try and walk through it and then looked genuinely confused as to why the sign was even there.
Fatherhood is a daily joy.
I get your point but also I'm a pedantic Lemming, so I want to point out that in the middle-ages, castle would purposefully build uneven steps. People familiar with the castle would soon get used to them and they'd be no bother, but an attacker running upwards will surely trip. And they'll trip because of the stairs. Or will it be their own fault for not looking at each individual step to give your body the information it needs?
Just rhetorical exercise, I don't actually care at all about one side or the other.
(An added stair fact, round staircases would ascend in a clockwise manner, so that right-handed defenders would have the advantage over right-handed attackers whilst fighting in the stairs.)
-
Insufficient data!
Was the bench around a corner or jutting out? Was the boy part of a crowd that obscured the bench? Is the bench somehow camouflaged? Is it static and stationary?
Is the boy fully sighted? Is it dark? Did someone distract him? Was he panicked by someone? Could he have deliberately run into it?
Is there an adult that should be monitoring the boy? Is the bench reasonably out of the way and visible? Was any attempt made at childproofing?
I am generally inclined to blame a relevant adult when applicable
-
Mh. I think stage 5 and 6 are purely individual. In the end, morals depend heavily on cultural context. And morals serving morality only are hypocritical. Nothing good about someone killing themselves because they couldn't save someone. And even this example depends on how close they were. Yet asians, who are culturally closer knit to their group and with more focus on family honor, often see that different.
Very good points, yes. Stage 5 and 6 are individual and rarely develop, and none of it is a one size fits all, as vygotsky's sociacultrual theory proposes, a persons cognitive development and how they put meaning to things, concepts and actions form from thier environment, society and culture. What we see as good or bad is dependent on our respective cultures, and can be easily hypocritical. Psychologically is a very intresting field because we dont have a definite answer on most things, the mind is textbook subjectivity.
We are taught the 6 stages of moral development not as a fact but to provoke thought on moral development in context of concrete operational thought (Which itself has shown to be subjective) and how our modern psychological understandings stem from. however the first two stages give a fair idea of pre-concrete-operational moral reasoning, so we can better
negotiatereason with children. -
Wait, some are born with what would lead to Narcisstic personality disorder?
I would have guessed this is more of a nurture situation, rather than nature
-
I have never in my life been presented with a scenario such as a child tripping over a bench and thought that the bench was in the wrong place.
Kids are ALWAYS in the wrong place, and usually at the wrong speed.
Literally today, my son (3) walked face-first into a freestanding sign. He meant to walk down a hallway to where I was, but instead headbutted a large sign about his height that was flush against a wall. It was not away from the wall, it was not overhanging the hallway at all. Nevertheless, he got distracted well enough to try and walk through it and then looked genuinely confused as to why the sign was even there.
Fatherhood is a daily joy.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Well next time pay closer attention yourself, they are either firmly mounted, or they are designed to be very noticeable or untribable, like with backs on them.
You haven’t noticed it, because of the codes and standards, but of course negligence can always happen, like someone moving a bench (which shouldn’t be movable in a place with children) and put it where it shouldn’t be.
Also, you think your daycare is gonna admit they moved something and let your kid trip? Nah, they’ll blame the kid instead of wanting their business to look bad. Anyone who’s been around kids know have a very good memory as well, so when they trip over something, it probably wasn’t there 5 minutes ago as well.
-
I get your point but also I'm a pedantic Lemming, so I want to point out that in the middle-ages, castle would purposefully build uneven steps. People familiar with the castle would soon get used to them and they'd be no bother, but an attacker running upwards will surely trip. And they'll trip because of the stairs. Or will it be their own fault for not looking at each individual step to give your body the information it needs?
Just rhetorical exercise, I don't actually care at all about one side or the other.
(An added stair fact, round staircases would ascend in a clockwise manner, so that right-handed defenders would have the advantage over right-handed attackers whilst fighting in the stairs.)
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It’s a little more interesting than this even. Your brain knows the stair riser heights after 2-3 steps, so individual stairs can be different riser heights, 125-200mm (5-8”). Each riser can’t be more than 3mm different in an individual stair. Not uncommon for your upper stairs to be slightly different from the bottom if there’s a landing.
So those people do consciously need to remember step 15 is different or they can trip. The rest would be pretty normal.
-
I mean at the same time we also have very strict building codes and are told to not place stuff where it creates tripping hazards.
In a flight of stairs, if even one step is off 1/8 of an inch or 3mm, it can cause someone to trip. The steps would be very valid to blame, so circumstances matter too.
I finally fell down my stairs a few months back. They’re carpeted and each step is a different length and height. Nightmare stairs.
-
This post did not contain any content.
A lot of people here seem stuck on the details of the metaphor instead of focusing on how some adults refuse to ever consider they are wrong or at fault, and that's a real problem in the world. You probably know someone who never admits fault for anything. If they're late, it's because of traffic. If they lose in mario kart, it's because the controller is bad. If they get lost, it's because the GPS is hard to understand. Never their fault.
-
It’s a little more interesting than this even. Your brain knows the stair riser heights after 2-3 steps, so individual stairs can be different riser heights, 125-200mm (5-8”). Each riser can’t be more than 3mm different in an individual stair. Not uncommon for your upper stairs to be slightly different from the bottom if there’s a landing.
So those people do consciously need to remember step 15 is different or they can trip. The rest would be pretty normal.
Also varied tread depth.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Stumble_steps.jpg/500px-Stumble_steps.jpg
We had some stone steps in the yard of a house I grew up in and I could still run those even in the dark, but I'm sure anyone running after me, unfamiliar with the steps would stumble.
I'm just wondering whether the ingenuity was from someone who actually designed them as such, or someone who did a poor job, almost got a bollocking, but then launched into a rant about how it's actually a defensive feature.
-
This post did not contain any content.
what about the person who put the bench there? if it was unintentional, the boy is to blame. but if it's intentional... well
-
A lot of people here seem stuck on the details of the metaphor instead of focusing on how some adults refuse to ever consider they are wrong or at fault, and that's a real problem in the world. You probably know someone who never admits fault for anything. If they're late, it's because of traffic. If they lose in mario kart, it's because the controller is bad. If they get lost, it's because the GPS is hard to understand. Never their fault.
I think it's a way bigger problem how some adults refuse to ever consider that the system is at fault and think every single problem in the world must be reduced down to an individual failing instead of a badly designed system that makes it easy for individuals to fail for stupid reasons
-
This post did not contain any content.
The artist is to blame for creating a boy who could only ever trip over a bench
-
This post did not contain any content.
the bench didn't show up on the first frame so, duh, popping~
stuttering~
the game engine sucks.
-
Adulthood doubles the frames: add one with no bench, and one with someone putting a bench in front of the child. The conclusion doesn't change: it's the kid's fault for tripping over the bench. We just collectively ignore that the kid was fine until someone put a bench in the way.
And the person has waay too many benches to last ten lifetimes. And yet, instead of using the benches to help people needing benches to sleep on, they choose to use it to trip kids.
