3 ms·

This is a case where early 20th century psychology is wrong, yet still propagates as false folk knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence#Cont

This is a case where early 20th century psychology is wrong, yet still propagates as false folk knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence#Contradicting_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence#Contradictin...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
smusamashah 2y ago
My kid use to drop things and look down at them from his chair. I didn't understand what he was trying to do. I learned that it was his way of trying to understand how world works. That if he dropped something, will it remain there or disappear. That contradicts this contradiction, unless there is another explanation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- simplify 2y ago
  A child doesn't always a mental "why" reasoning for their actions. Sometimes kids just behave in coarse playful ways, and those ways happen to be very useful for mental development.
- sepositus 2y ago
  My (much) older kid still does ridiculous things that defy reason (and usually end up with something broken). I don't think it's fair to say that every action they take has some deeper meaning behind it. "Why were you throwing the baseball at the running fan?" "I don't know...I was bored."
  - tim333 2y ago
    I'm not sure that stuff dies out fully with adulthood. I imagine part of Musk doing iffy salutes or Trump doing weird tariffs is a curiosity - what is I do this odd thing, I wonder what happens. I can think of examples with myself too - I'm kind of learning short term trading and the behaviors can be counterintuitive.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  If it's a round thing it might well disappear. Even with full understanding that things don't cease to exist when they leave your field of view, "where do things end up if I drop them" is a pretty big field to experiment with. Youtube is full of videos of adults doing the same, just from more extreme heights or other unusual scenarios (since as adults we have a solid grasp of the simpler scenarios)
- AIPedant 2y ago
  > I learned that it was his way of trying to understand how world works. That if he dropped something, will it remain there or disappear. I don’t understand how you learned this. Who told you that’s what was going on in his head?
crispycas12 2y ago
That's odd. This was content that was still on the MCAT when I took it last year. I even remember keeping the formation of objection permanence occuring ~0-2 years of age on my flashcards.
- throwanem 2y ago
  Have you checked lately, though?
- AIPedant 2y ago
  It’s far from perfect in newborns (containers take some time to understand, and in general infants have weak short-term memory). I also wonder how much effort goes into updating MCAT questions with new scientific developments, especially when there is limited clinical significance - an infant who struggles with object permanence likely has serious neurological/cognitive problems across the board.
namaria 2y ago
I don't think it's so clear cut. The wikipedia article cites a 1971 book and an article from 1991 as sources. A paper from 2014 is not so sure this is a settled matter: "Infant object permanence is still an enigma after four decades of research. Is it an innate endowment, a developmental attainment, or an abstract idea not attributable to non-verbal infants?" and argues that object permanence is not in fact innate but developed: "It is argued that object permanence is not innately specified, but develops. The theory proposed here is that object permanence is an attainment that grows from a developmentally prior understanding of object identity" "In sum, it is posited that permanence is initially dependent on the nature of the occlusion; with development, it becomes a property of objects. Even for 10–12-month-olds, object permanence is still a work-in-progress, manifested on one disappearance transformation but not another." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4215949/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4215949/

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

smusamashah 2y ago

My kid use to drop things and look down at them from his chair. I didn't understand what he was trying to do. I learned that it was his way of trying to understand how world works. That if he dropped something, will it remain there or disappear. That contradicts this contradiction, unless there is another explanation.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
simplify 2y ago
A child doesn't always a mental "why" reasoning for their actions. Sometimes kids just behave in coarse playful ways, and those ways happen to be very useful for mental development.
sepositus 2y ago
My (much) older kid still does ridiculous things that defy reason (and usually end up with something broken). I don't think it's fair to say that every action they take has some deeper meaning behind it. "Why were you throwing the baseball at the running fan?" "I don't know...I was bored."
- tim333 2y ago
  I'm not sure that stuff dies out fully with adulthood. I imagine part of Musk doing iffy salutes or Trump doing weird tariffs is a curiosity - what is I do this odd thing, I wonder what happens. I can think of examples with myself too - I'm kind of learning short term trading and the behaviors can be counterintuitive.
wongarsu 2y ago
If it's a round thing it might well disappear. Even with full understanding that things don't cease to exist when they leave your field of view, "where do things end up if I drop them" is a pretty big field to experiment with. Youtube is full of videos of adults doing the same, just from more extreme heights or other unusual scenarios (since as adults we have a solid grasp of the simpler scenarios)
AIPedant 2y ago
> I learned that it was his way of trying to understand how world works. That if he dropped something, will it remain there or disappear. I don’t understand how you learned this. Who told you that’s what was going on in his head?

crispycas12 2y ago

That's odd. This was content that was still on the MCAT when I took it last year. I even remember keeping the formation of objection permanence occuring ~0-2 years of age on my flashcards.

throwanem 2y ago
Have you checked lately, though?
AIPedant 2y ago
It’s far from perfect in newborns (containers take some time to understand, and in general infants have weak short-term memory). I also wonder how much effort goes into updating MCAT questions with new scientific developments, especially when there is limited clinical significance - an infant who struggles with object permanence likely has serious neurological/cognitive problems across the board.

namaria 2y ago

I don't think it's so clear cut. The wikipedia article cites a 1971 book and an article from 1991 as sources. A paper from 2014 is not so sure this is a settled matter: "Infant object permanence is still an enigma after four decades of research. Is it an innate endowment, a developmental attainment, or an abstract idea not attributable to non-verbal infants?" and argues that object permanence is not in fact innate but developed: "It is argued that object permanence is not innately specified, but develops. The theory proposed here is that object permanence is an attainment that grows from a developmentally prior understanding of object identity" "In sum, it is posited that permanence is initially dependent on the nature of the occlusion; with development, it becomes a property of objects. Even for 10–12-month-olds, object permanence is still a work-in-progress, manifested on one disappearance transformation but not another." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4215949/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4215949/