5 ms·

I don't understand how people think this is honest. You're clearly using your cognitive advantage (or in the case of a boss, usually an organizational info adv

I don't understand how people think this is honest. You're clearly using your cognitive advantage (or in the case of a boss, usually an organizational info advantage) to trick the other person. I remember as I grew up noticing when adults were doing this, and I resented them for it. Why would I want my kids to feel that way about me?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pappyo 10y ago
Any cognitive advantage that is abused will be seen as manipulative, absolutely. The way to make "the illusion of choice" work is to be selective about it. You start out by giving the 4 year old the illusion of choice (the jacket or the sweater), but what you're really doing is coaching the child to make appropriate decisions. After a few times, you won't have to give the child the choice anymore, because they will know the parameters of the choices for the challenge facing them. You could simply say "let's get ready to go out." Same thing with a boss. (S)he can use this cognitive tool to coach good decisions. People like choice and they like being right. Using this method allows for both.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  You're justifying it as being in the child's (or employee's) interest, but you're not actually denying the transgression. Lying becomes less worse when you lie for someone else's benefit but (1) that doesn't make it not lying, (2) the other person can still rightfully resent it, (3) you generally shouldn't trust yourself to only lie in another's interest. Regarding the last one: I often see normal, reasonably good parents lie to their children just to get relief, and I'm sure they can justify it to themselves as in the child's interest, but it's really just self-serving. (You can replace "lie" with "white lie", "trick", or whatever euphemism you want for this mild, but real, transgression.) I think one good check on this is whether the child would be OK with it after-the-fact, assuming some hypothetical wisdom and hindsight (like becoming an adult). If they aren't OK with it, then you probably shouldn't do it. And I'm telling you right now: as an adult, I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    On that note: On the Decay of the Art of Lying, by Mark Twain: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.html
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What's the lie? They have a choice, which you present. There isn't some third option you're hiding, and the choice presented isn't false.
  - inimino 10y ago
    > I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child. I'm curious to know more about this. Was it cases like "the jacket or the sweater" or was it something more serious? If your parent distracted you from not getting ice cream by giving you a toy, would you be OK with that? Basically you are distracting them because they don't yet have the cognitive awareness to distract themselves.
bmy78 10y ago
It's not "tricking", unless you're letting your toddler dictate whether you should leave the house. Toddlers don't have a choice over that; instead, you're giving the toddler a choice appropriate to their level. That helps build their cognitive abilities and takes the focus away from whether they want to leave the house (a choice they shouldn't make), to whether they want the sweater or coat (a choice reasonable for them).
- jessriedel 10y ago
  You're using a cognitive advantage to distract them from expressing displeasure about something they reasonably don't like. Just because the toddler doesn't have a say over whether you're leaving the house doesn't mean you're not tricking him. If two people are dating, the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship. But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying "Would you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. (That example is extreme to illustrate the point, but the idea is the same.)
  - mhluongo 10y ago
    It's clearly not a fair comparison. At some point you need to introduce an age of determination or at least a grade to have a reasonable conversation about the ethics of parenting. Parents are required to do all sorts of things in their kids' best interest that wouldn't otherwise be reasonable / appropriate.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      The point of the example was not that it was a perfect analogy, it was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression. I already addressed the child's-interest defense in another comment. Yes, there are of course cases where parents transgressions may be justified (and required) in order to help the child, but we shouldn't pretend there is no transgression, in particular because we should always try to secure the good outcome for the child without the transgression.
Buttons840 10y ago
It goes both ways. If a boss says "do X" you may not have a gracefull opportunity to respond. But if a boss says "wold you rather do X or Y" you are more likely to be able to say "how about Z because...". Granted, in a healthy relationship neither party has must resort to such tricks.
Mz 10y ago
I got downvoted for making essentially the same point (elsewhere in this same discussion). I think you are 100% correct, but are not likely to win the argument. People don't like having it pointed out that what is convenient for them is not actually ethical, even if that isn't how you are framing it. They will defend to their death their right to claim "well, it is in the best interest of (the child, employee, whomever)" and ignore the larger point. The irony is this is being suggested by an article that posits we should be nicer to our kids and not punish them. But deception and manipulation, that's apparently totes okay! It is so much nicer! I don't believe in a punishment model. I also did not lie to my kids, nor deceive them nor manipulate them. I have a great relationship with my now adult sons who know they can trust me because I don't pull any of that bullshit. And that's what really matters to me. I sometimes wish I could figure out to share that information effectively to help other parents, but people who justify their shitty behavior don't actually want to be helped. They want the rest of the world to be nicer to benefit themselves, but they don't want to have to deal with the man in the mirror. He's fine. It's everyone else that is bad. And it is usually fruitless to try to debate it. Best.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pappyo 10y ago

Any cognitive advantage that is abused will be seen as manipulative, absolutely. The way to make "the illusion of choice" work is to be selective about it. You start out by giving the 4 year old the illusion of choice (the jacket or the sweater), but what you're really doing is coaching the child to make appropriate decisions. After a few times, you won't have to give the child the choice anymore, because they will know the parameters of the choices for the challenge facing them. You could simply say "let's get ready to go out." Same thing with a boss. (S)he can use this cognitive tool to coach good decisions. People like choice and they like being right. Using this method allows for both.

jessriedel 10y ago
You're justifying it as being in the child's (or employee's) interest, but you're not actually denying the transgression. Lying becomes less worse when you lie for someone else's benefit but (1) that doesn't make it not lying, (2) the other person can still rightfully resent it, (3) you generally shouldn't trust yourself to only lie in another's interest. Regarding the last one: I often see normal, reasonably good parents lie to their children just to get relief, and I'm sure they can justify it to themselves as in the child's interest, but it's really just self-serving. (You can replace "lie" with "white lie", "trick", or whatever euphemism you want for this mild, but real, transgression.) I think one good check on this is whether the child would be OK with it after-the-fact, assuming some hypothetical wisdom and hindsight (like becoming an adult). If they aren't OK with it, then you probably shouldn't do it. And I'm telling you right now: as an adult, I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child.
- icebraining 10y ago
  On that note: On the Decay of the Art of Lying, by Mark Twain: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.html
- mikeash 10y ago
  What's the lie? They have a choice, which you present. There isn't some third option you're hiding, and the choice presented isn't false.
- inimino 10y ago
  > I don't like the fact that adults did this to me when I was a child. I'm curious to know more about this. Was it cases like "the jacket or the sweater" or was it something more serious? If your parent distracted you from not getting ice cream by giving you a toy, would you be OK with that? Basically you are distracting them because they don't yet have the cognitive awareness to distract themselves.

bmy78 10y ago

It's not "tricking", unless you're letting your toddler dictate whether you should leave the house. Toddlers don't have a choice over that; instead, you're giving the toddler a choice appropriate to their level. That helps build their cognitive abilities and takes the focus away from whether they want to leave the house (a choice they shouldn't make), to whether they want the sweater or coat (a choice reasonable for them).

jessriedel 10y ago
You're using a cognitive advantage to distract them from expressing displeasure about something they reasonably don't like. Just because the toddler doesn't have a say over whether you're leaving the house doesn't mean you're not tricking him. If two people are dating, the boyfriend is well within his rights to unilaterally break off the relationship. But if he broached the issue with his girlfriend by saying "Would you rather be just friends or simply not see each other any more?" in order to distract her from the breakup, she would rightfully be resentful. (That example is extreme to illustrate the point, but the idea is the same.)
- mhluongo 10y ago
  It's clearly not a fair comparison. At some point you need to introduce an age of determination or at least a grade to have a reasonable conversation about the ethics of parenting. Parents are required to do all sorts of things in their kids' best interest that wouldn't otherwise be reasonable / appropriate.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    The point of the example was not that it was a perfect analogy, it was merely to rebut the idea that a parent's prerogative to choose destination doesn't mean there's no transgression. I already addressed the child's-interest defense in another comment. Yes, there are of course cases where parents transgressions may be justified (and required) in order to help the child, but we shouldn't pretend there is no transgression, in particular because we should always try to secure the good outcome for the child without the transgression.

Buttons840 10y ago

It goes both ways. If a boss says "do X" you may not have a gracefull opportunity to respond. But if a boss says "wold you rather do X or Y" you are more likely to be able to say "how about Z because...". Granted, in a healthy relationship neither party has must resort to such tricks.

Mz 10y ago

I got downvoted for making essentially the same point (elsewhere in this same discussion). I think you are 100% correct, but are not likely to win the argument. People don't like having it pointed out that what is convenient for them is not actually ethical, even if that isn't how you are framing it. They will defend to their death their right to claim "well, it is in the best interest of (the child, employee, whomever)" and ignore the larger point. The irony is this is being suggested by an article that posits we should be nicer to our kids and not punish them. But deception and manipulation, that's apparently totes okay! It is so much nicer! I don't believe in a punishment model. I also did not lie to my kids, nor deceive them nor manipulate them. I have a great relationship with my now adult sons who know they can trust me because I don't pull any of that bullshit. And that's what really matters to me. I sometimes wish I could figure out to share that information effectively to help other parents, but people who justify their shitty behavior don't actually want to be helped. They want the rest of the world to be nicer to benefit themselves, but they don't want to have to deal with the man in the mirror. He's fine. It's everyone else that is bad. And it is usually fruitless to try to debate it. Best.