22 ms·
Challenging ‘rule breakers’ – children will confront their peers
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- thro1 5y agoIt's: challenging the kids with rule breaking (that's normal kids, not rule breakers). About true, challenging rule breaker see the movie: "System Crasher" (2019).
- thro1 5y agoDownvoted ? - the title is clickbait: nor the kids are challenging (hard cases), nor challenging others (only confronting, maybe to help), neither they are challenged at any point to do that - but if they do, they are not rule breakers but 'rule breakers' - keepers and conformists to what they been taught (the only rule breaking are the researchers, their challenge is to mess with kids, not being challenged self).
- yosito 5y agoSo, kids are tattle tales? Did we need a study to tell us this?
- the_only_law 5y agoEventually we would see a [citation needed] below the claim.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> So, kids are tattle tales? 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.
- aidenn0 5y agoIn my experience kids are tattle tales when they have had their power to intervene directly significantly curtailed. I remember a kid asking me to tell my daughter to stop doing some behavior (she was a few years younger than him). I asked him if he had already asked her to stop and he looked at me like I was from mars. At least where I live, many kids have been taught in many ways that direct intervention is something that will get them in trouble, and tattle-tales are at least partly a result of that. This is also IMO why girls are more likely to tattle-tale. Girls, on average, get in way more trouble for instigating physical violence than boys, so they have had one method of direct intervention more strongly curtailed.
- hirundo 5y agoI 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 fiction. I think that's not despite this kind of inborn reaction, but to leverage it. This particular movie just had a lot of leverage to work with.
- zomglings 5y agoWhat 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dmurray 5y agoSpoiler (obviously) but trying not to give away too much, I'm sure the rule in question is that the hero is meant to live happily ever after.
- aidenn0 5y agoExcept that never applied to Bond; any time he seemed to be about to have some semblance of a normal life terrible stuff happens to him and/or his loved one(s).
- fnord77 5y agoan event happens that terminates the series for good. though I bet in 4 years the producers will change their mind and retcon the series back to life.
- conductr 5y agoCurrent Hollywood would just start remaking them. No time/budget for new scripts.
- andi999 5y agoThe article doesn't sustain what the headline is indicating.
- TameAntelope 5y agoEh, the study calls "rule breakers" the children who seemingly make mistakes applying a set of rules to a puzzle. These aren't kids acting out in class and being put back in line by their peers, it's two kids doing some pair programming. Am I "confronting" my coworker when I suggest a different way to loop than the one they implemented? Nothing wrong with the study, just saying the word "challenging" is not used here in the layperson sense, that is confrontationally.
- sandworm101 5y agoIn 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.
- mherdeg 5y agoI'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 because it helps him make progress - or hits the "X" and quits if he can't figure it out. But some folks who watch him do this get pretty mad -- "no, kid, you're supposed to click on the blue one! No, don't crash the car, go down there! You have to push something!". This is an interesting philosophy, and while it's not one I share I'm not gonna intervene because he needs to get used to hearing this from people sometimes.
- hosh 5y agoMy 1 yr old does this all the time when exploring the world. I have had to tell my 17-year old stepchild who easily gets down on failures, that my role as a parent isn’t to protect my children from failure, but to protect them from catastrophic failure (ones that cannot be easily recoverable from). Myself, it isn’t something I learned until I was an adult, encountering “growth mindset” and practicing martial arts. Failures are the foundation of growth and anti-fragility, and works better if you can un-identify with it.
- carom 5y agoTangentially 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".
- itronitron 5y ago>> what compels people to report rule breakers they still believe there will be consequences to the rule breakers as a result of reporting them...
- ckqyt 5y agoIf someone has no real talents apart from following and enforcing arbitrary rules, he/she can rise in the social hierarchy by virtue signaling and reporting others. We see this in many open source projects now.
- tux3 5y agoI suspect it stems from a feeling of fairness: I have to follow the rules, so how come you get away with doing whatever you want? That's intuitively not fair. Now I don't agree with that from a consequentialist point of view, but I could understand the feeling.
- _jal 5y ago> I find it super interesting that people want to get other people in trouble over (often) things that don't negatively affect them 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.
- aidenn0 5y ago
- hanoz 5y agoThe 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.
- newsclues 5y agoChildren teach others. They are learning through the teaching process.
- hanoz 5y agoIndeed. The lead author expresses surprise that rural children are more likely to intervene. That's exactly what I'd expect.
- conductr 5y agoExactly. They’re mimicking how they were taught. My 3yo is all about “let me show you” because that’s exactly what we say when we teach him something/how to use a new toy. When a guest comes over, it’s his turn to show off his new toy and teach them how to use it.
- dqpb 5y agoCorrecting 'mistakes' - children help their peers.
- Supermancho 5y ago> We assumed that, because everyone knows everyone else in small scale communities, direct interventions would be less common, as people could rely on more indirect ways such as reputation to ensure compliance with rules. But we actually found the opposite to be true. Sigh. This is the kind of bad assumption I would expect from a 1st year college student. In rural communities, the risk of someone making mistakes is more impactful (and therefor more serious). Rural life is a lot simpler in some ways, as well. In an urban center, there are countless ways to solve problems and discoveries to be made with the materials at hand. Urban mistakes or inefficiencies are well tolerated, as they may simply be a previously unknown solution/technique with their own cost/benefit profile.
- fnord77 5y ago> The children were each taught to play a block sorting game – with half taught to sort the blocks by colour, and half taught to sort them by shape. They were then put into pairs, with one playing the game and the other observing. At an early stage of development, could this sort of study introduce some sort of neurosis or pathology into these children's behaviors? My "this might not be harmless" radar is pinging
- conductr 5y agoI like how the comments are full of people challenging the rule breaking author/title/study
- supernova87a 5y agoI don't recall exactly right now, but I remember an article that had a 2x2 description of people who are vocal vs. internalized and rule-abiding vs. rulebreaker-tolerating.. or something like that. It did help me accept (or at least understand) a little bit more some people I observe who just live their lives like "it's all good" or "if the person does that, they must need it really bad". I never really understood that kind of mentality, for 2 reasons. 1) When someone breaks the rules, and goes unchecked, it just encourages them to do it more and reinforces their belief that the bad behavior is acceptable. And there is something to the notion that seeing people break the rules degrades respect for the rules in general. 2) Every time someone breaks the rules, it's a tax on those who follow the rules. Why am I inconveniencing myself by following rules when others just go ahead and break them? Or in another way of saying it, especially when rules are only partially enforced, the people who follow the rules are made suckers. Better to not have the rule at all. I guess this became a bit more frustrating to me over time (or maybe because of age) as I understand rules better and have an opinion on their validity (especially the history of them), to see people giving up on the idea of enforcing rules or standards at the request of people who break the rules, or people who just have sympathy for them. Well then, why did we create the rules in the first place? Just toss the rules out, and let everyone go free-for-all, so that the rule-abiding people aren't paying a tax while others go "scot-free". So easy, isn't it, for people coming later to forget all the work that it took to experience and solve for these problems that we can just toss them out now. There was the example of the MIT admissions director who had faked her PhD the whole time (or say, how some people get meaningless paper PhDs from no-name schools to increase their government job pay), and one of my grad school colleagues (toiling away for his PhD!) said, "You would go out of your way to report that? What harm has it done you?". I was incredulous. Maybe I'm getting more conservative in my old age.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoI guess, not really? But this results in justifying any existing rule and that conclusion is incompatible with my existing world view so I end up viewing it as an artifact of rhetoric rather than a result of logic.
- deleted 5y ago
- helge9210 5y agoBoth kids in a pair play according to "correct" rules. Just different. So the possible outcomes are: - observer forces his version of rules - observer fail to force his version of rules - player is forced to abandon the game - observer is forced to abandon the game - both observer and player voluntary decide to abandon the game - both figure out they were given different "correct" set of rules, so they pick one of the sets or come up with a new one