3 ms·
If the secret swapping wasn't as secret as the experimenters thought, these results seem consistent with the babies having a stable, random preference order amo
by dllthomas 6y ago
If the secret swapping wasn't as secret as the experimenters thought, these results seem consistent with the babies having a stable, random preference order among the blocks.
Otherwise, it does seem like they've demonstrated (something like?) choice induced preference change in babies, and it's additionally interesting that it can be tricked that way.
- gowld 6y agoNo, because the boxes were swapped after the initial preference selection.
- dllthomas 6y agoI don't understand.
- WalterSear 6y agoWhichever the baby chose, that became A, the other became B.
- dllthomas 6y agoYou mean the initial labeling happens (without loss of generality) such that the baby has always chosen A? That's not the swapping I was discussing. I meant this bit: > After the baby is shown the first two toys, they are placed under boxes and secretly swapped. Despite originally having chosen B, the baby instead gets to interact with A. If the baby actually tracks the swapping (probably unlikely), then I think it's not the case that they "originally [chose] B" - unless (quite possible) I am misunderstanding something, which is why I seek clarification.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]