24 ms·
Let your kids lose: Success inhibits preschoolers’ selective trust
- glaberficken 10y agoConfessing I didn't read the article, but from my parenting experience - Beating your kids at games teaches them one very important thing about real life: to learn a skill you have to practice repeatedly. This inevitably involves frustration and persistence which any human being should be prepared to deal with in life.
- aswanson 10y agoThe earlier this lesson is learned, the better the life lived.
- marmaduke 10y agoIdk seems like common sense.
- marmaduke 10y agowhoa, downboats! I meant, why does it require a scientific study to understand that lying to small children deforms their worldview?
- jdietrich 10y agoCommon sense is decidedly uncommon. Sometimes science affirms a widely held belief, sometimes it refutes common knowledge and sometimes it leads to a paradigm shift. All these discoveries are equally valuable.
- sjreese 10y agoExactly!
- kazagistar 10y agoEvery 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.
- marmaduke 10y agoamusing, I'm a scientist and a parent and yet I don't get it?
- kazagistar 10y ago- Its important to validate the obvious, because sometimes its not so obvious. - Having a flippant, dismissive, repetitive comment provides no value to the conversation and wastes the time of anyone reading.
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoSolution: play something that has essentially zero strategy, where who wins is close to random. Like Ludo or Yahtzee. My daughter often wins at Ludo, but it's not because I let her. She also often loses.
- sirclueless 10y agoIf you can do it convincingly, you can probably play games involving some skill if you adopt a consistent and beatable strategy. Like Uno by playing the oldest legal card in your hand and choosing a color you hold randomly for wilds, or Guess Who by always choosing an attribute that about 1/4 of remaining characters share.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoThat's a partial solution. It doesn't help them with developing winning strategies if the outcome is random. Nor does it help them develop determination; nor, I wager, resilience to losing. I want my kids to beat me, not just win by chance.
- ordu 10y agoIts not a solution, I believe. Random success is not based on decision making skills. Random success will teach child to make random decisions. Just not be afraid to really lose to your child in game which at start equally unknown for both you and your child. Let your child to learn how to win and learn how to learn to win. As an example of such a learning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11653538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11653538 If you or your child do not like chess, you can choose any other game, which allows your child to use his fluent mind strengths to win you. Just stop thinking that child is small, stupid and unable to win a fair game. He really can win, but not the games where your crystallized mind has its advantages.
- NPMaxwell 10y agoI'm guessing that you meant to type "learn how to win and learn how to lose", which is a great point. Understanding how to move forward happily after failure is a huge asset.
- smnc 10y agoBlocked by security rules? https://i.imgur.com/l2sOlRw.png https://i.imgur.com/l2sOlRw.png
- shakna 10y agoThat's the local proxy you're accessing through. Talk to IT.
- soft_dev_person 10y agoImgur allowed but Science Daily is blocked. I'd like to know the rationale behind that one =)
- TeMPOraL 10y agorule: .*daily.* deny -- to stop people wasting time... rule: imgur.com/.* allow -- kitten pictures allowed -- (we don't want to have a revolution at our hands)
- smnc 10y agoIt turned out to be due to Incapsula web accelerator/protector [0]. > Incapsula is a service that secures and accelerates the website you were trying to reach. It works fine in Firefox/Chrome, I was trying to open it using qutebrowser so maybe it's a problem with QtWebKit? Anyways, my fault for jumping to conclusions (thinking the site was hugged to death). [0] https://www.incapsula.com/why-am-i-seeing-this-page.html https://www.incapsula.com/why-am-i-seeing-this-page.html
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- revscat 10y agoThe 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.
- sctb 10y agoI'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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13131251, but please don't comment unsubstantively on the topic like this.
- mac01021 10y agoWithout knowing about the "game" from the study and the "rigging" process in greater detail than the article provides it's hard to see how (or whether) the outcome is meaningful.
- joaorico 10y agoOne 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 can beat them mercilessly, or you can join their side and practice the game together. And the thrill and confidence they get when they beat you playing 'for real' is just priceless.
- eatbitseveryday 10y agoI am curious. Can you give a concrete example or two? Also, if not about a board game, where else would this apply?
- ethbro 10y agoPhysical contests (sports, racing, wrestling), knowledge contests ("Do you know x?"), practice based games (as you mentioned, some board, chess, etc). Essentially anything where "I've consumed more calories that you have" or "I've had more years to think that you have" are an unfair advantage for purposes of fun.
- jungrothmorton 10y agoThe 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.
- saycheese 10y agoRELATED: School with "No Rules" Playground https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Y0cuufVGI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Y0cuufVGI
- imagist 10y agoThis something I've realized about my own impostor syndrome: the people who are most likely to knock me down a peg when I'm being overconfident are the only ones I trust when they compliment me. If you only ever hear positive things from someone, you can't trust that what they say is true.
- smallnamespace 10y ago> 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.
- shiven 10y agoThis. 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.
- neurotech1 10y agoElon Musk is known for soliciting negative feedback, from friends.
- literallycancer 10y agoIt's harder to improve something when you never get negative feedback. I'd rather hear a negative opinion than nothing (when looking for feedback, that is).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jonex 10y agoOk, I must have read something wrong, but what they are saying is that children put more trust in people giving them useful clues than people giving them not useful clues. Something that seems quite reasonable. Which makes me confused by this quote: "... it suggests that children may not be as savvy as previous research has suggested." Obviously a "helpful" clue that doesn't improve your chance of success (they always succeed) isn't really helpful. Isn't it quite savvy to recognise that? If someone has gotten a better understanding of what they are actually trying to say I'd like to hear it. There might be an interesting result in it somewhere, as it could be interpreted to imply that only slightly challenging kids in an educational context could lead them to believe that their learning efforts has no use if the challenges are adjusted to never let them fail. But I don't see how the results could be interpreted to mean what the title says.
- imp 10y agoI completely agree. They are taking a limited experiment and extrapolating to parenting in general.
- zaroth 10y agoOne experimenter gave accurate clues; the other gave inaccurate ones.... But for half of the children the game was rigged so that ultimately they would find the hidden objects. So one adult was always giving bad advice and one was always giving good advice. But in half the games it was rigged so the child always found the toy even if they looked in the wrong places. The advice from the adults was still always bad and good advice for the rigged games. Afterwards they asked the kids who they thought were more helpful. Even though one adult was giving bad advice always and one adult was giving good advice always the 4-5 years olds only discerned this if they actually lost the game when they didn't follow the good advice, even though the adult giving bad advice was always still giving bad advice. I think the key is they must have rigged the game to ensure the bad advice adult was always still giving bad advice. If the bad advice turned into good advice in the rigged version then it wouldn't work, just like you said.
- jonex 10y agoBut 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.
- SeanDav 10y agoI 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.
- cheald 10y agoMy 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 moves are his and his alone. When he wins, it'll be because he earned it, and I know from experience what a triumph that win will be.
- mathattack 10y agoI'm similar in chess, but I'm afraid the day of reckoning for Pops may be sooner than I had planned for!
- __s 10y agoMy father stopped playing chess with me once I began consistently beating him
- lostlogin 10y agoIn the chess arena - if heard a couple of good reviews of this game lately. Chess with random pieces but you get worse prices the better you play. Off for a game now. Really Bad Chess by Zach Gage https://appsto.re/nz/XHxjcb.i https://appsto.re/nz/XHxjcb.i
- user837387 10y agoI do not understand how can he beat you if you started playing as a kid. Granted, I don't know what I'm talking about but unless you are going senile I don't see how he can beat you while he's still a kid.
- known 10y agoEncourage kids to celebrate their failures
- sjreese 10y agoYou mean the Superman suit I got from Amazon isn't working. Grow, Grow oh ohhh :-)
- peterbonney 10y agoVery interesting research. Unfortunately we all should have learned by now that it pays to be skeptical of all provocative social science findings until replicated...
- alexandercrohde 10y agoI 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 actual study anywhere, so I can't even check what this research actually is.
- dang 10y agoIf you or anyone can suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral title), we can change it. The HN guidelines call for changing titles when they are either linkbait or misleading (and that's not an xor). https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- throwaway729 10y agoBoth the subtitle of the linked article and the published journal article's main title are: "Success inhibits preschoolers’ ability to establish selective trust". The "establish selective trust" phrase is much more accurate than just "trust" -- in fact, the current title on HN in strictly incorrect. The preschoolers don't have problems trusting. Rather, you could argue that they're more trustworthy when they never lose. It's the "selective" part that's important. (That said, this feels a bit pedantic to me, and it seems as if no one is confused by the difference in wording.) The "Let your kids lose:" prefix on the SD headline (and not in the peer reviewed publication) could cut either way -- it might be link bait, but it's also not inconsistent with the researchers' advice.
- dang 10y agoOk, we put 'selective' in the title. Thanks!
- bzbarsky 10y agoStudy 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/S0022096516301035 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096516...
- andersonmvd 10y agoIn summary the takeaway would be "you only understand the importance of something when you lose it" thus those kids who won the game despite receiving good advice thought that it was normal somehow to the point of not acknowledging the help they've got as they succeed anyways, but those who lost recognize that good advice would have helped them. I hope I understood it correctly.
- Dowwie 10y agoWhat if your child loses more often than anticipated and learns hopelessness?
- marsrover 10y agoI think that's called learning 'life'.
- stractract 10y agoCall 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?
- ldjb 10y agoThe article doesn't explain the experiment very well, which has caused confusion for myself and other commenters here. Having read the actual research paper, I'll try to outline how the experiment works, as I understand it: Children were shown a video on a laptop featuring two containers. There would either be a helpful person or an unhelpful person who secretly puts a toy in one of the containers. The helpful person would then indicate which container they had put the toy into (either by pointing to the container or by lifting the containers to reveal the toy). Contrary to what the article says, the unhelpful person simply did not offer any sort of hint. The child would then be asked to select the container the toy was in. I hope that clears things up.
- gojomo 10y agoI suspect "children" here may be a distraction: under the same artificial constraints, adult players might show the exact same behavior. From the article (and abstract), it's hard to imagine a game where the 'bad' advice is really 'bad' if (1) the player always trusts it; and (2) they then always succeed. In such a case, the forced-success may retroactively make the bad-advice 'good'. (At best, maybe the bad advice forced a slower completion? But that requires assuming some more complicated game.) From playing the game of interpreting this article, I have concluded that neither the article author nor the researchers (via their original abstract) can be trusted to summarize such research in sufficient detail for unambiguous interpretation.
- gregorymichael 10y agoOne of my favorite approaches in chess: play straight up, but allow your opponent to switch sides with you once (e.g., let them play the endgame from a winning position).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- avaid1996 10y agoi feel like it's important to win a couple of times while learning to give the human brain some short term reward to keep going. I'd surely try this first on something low stakes if a kid gives up. You don't want to give a kid a mindblock from something `important`
- ievahanordah 10y agoWhen all you do is win a predicament happens. You never learn from losing, but it never becomes financially reasonable to purposely make yourself lose just for the lesson.