5 ms·

tl;dr: Stories focusing on the positive aspects: Good. --> i.e. George Washington and the Cherry Tree Stories focusing on the negative consequences: BAD.

by sogen 12y ago

tl;dr: Stories focusing on the positive aspects: Good. --> i.e. George Washington and the Cherry Tree Stories focusing on the negative consequences: BAD. (Pinocchio, The Boy Who Cried Wolf)

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Strange. I find the boy who cried wolf to be a really good one. It's still something I think of from time to time. I doesn't stop me telling the odd lie but if/when I consider a big lie I definitely consider the consequences based on that story.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  I suspect that the age of the children has a big impact on the results. The study was of 3-7 year olds. If you remember it well then you were at the upper end of that range, if not older.
  - watwut 12y ago
    Why was this downvoted?
  - aimhb 12y ago
    Yes. The Boy Who Cried Wolf has other issues, as well, though; I remember thinking (as a child) that it was as much the villagers' fault for not believing the kid as it was the kid's fault for lying before.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  I used to agree with that interpretation until I saw the DS9 episode where Garet comments on the story - and points out that the mistake was to keep telling the same lie and a lie that is easy to very is a lie.
wslh 12y ago
Re Stories focusing on the positive aspects It reminds me of this article/discussion: "Fighting in front of your children - not such a bad thing?". The positive aspect is giving the whole picture of the drama, showing that things, sometimes, can be solved in a peaceful/negotiated way. [1] http://www.parentdish.co.uk/kids/fighting-in-front-of-your-children-not-such-a-bad-thing/ http://www.parentdish.co.uk/kids/fighting-in-front-of-your-c...
naturalethic 12y ago
Gotta love it when morality tales are crossed with government worship. It's a twofer.
droithomme 12y ago
I don't doubt their measurements, but as is so common with these sorts of studies their conclusions are completely interpretive according to their own whims. The George Washington story matches the subsequent experience of the child. The child is asked if they did the bad thing, just exactly as George Washington was asked in the story. A very young child will be able to make the connection between what is happening and the story they just heard because the exact same thing is going down. The other stories are more abstract. They are not stories of someone doing a bad thing and then being asked if they did the bad thing. It's a more reasonable conclusion, in my opinion, that what we are seeing is an effect of how close the story is to the experience, without having to rely on abstraction skills a very young child does not possess. And not whether the outcome was good or bad. In general the study design is poor and more people should have seen that. There are numerous differences between these stories, hundreds of differences, not just outcome. And one of the stories being much closer to what they are testing is obviously relevant and confounding. A better study design would be able to explore this. For example, tell the children one of the following stories: 1. George Washington does a bad thing and is asked if he did it. When he says yes, he is rewarded. 2. George Washington does a bad thing and is asked if he did it. When he says yes, he is punished. 3. George Washington does a bad thing. He is not asked if he did it, but is rewarded by fate. 4. George Washington does a bad thing. He is not asked if he did it, but is punished by fate. 5. George Washington does a good thing and is asked if he did it. When he says yes, he is rewarded. 6. George Washington does a good thing and is asked if he did it. When he says yes, he is punished. 7. George Washington does a good thing. He is not asked if he did it, but is rewarded by fate. 8. George Washington does a good thing. He is not asked if he did it, but is punished by fate.

by sogen 12y ago

tl;dr: Stories focusing on the positive aspects: Good. --> i.e. George Washington and the Cherry Tree Stories focusing on the negative consequences: BAD. (Pinocchio, The Boy Who Cried Wolf)

k-mcgrady 12y ago

Strange. I find the boy who cried wolf to be a really good one. It's still something I think of from time to time. I doesn't stop me telling the odd lie but if/when I consider a big lie I definitely consider the consequences based on that story.

bryanlarsen 12y ago
I suspect that the age of the children has a big impact on the results. The study was of 3-7 year olds. If you remember it well then you were at the upper end of that range, if not older.
- watwut 12y ago
  Why was this downvoted?
- aimhb 12y ago
  Yes. The Boy Who Cried Wolf has other issues, as well, though; I remember thinking (as a child) that it was as much the villagers' fault for not believing the kid as it was the kid's fault for lying before.
tomjen3 12y ago
I used to agree with that interpretation until I saw the DS9 episode where Garet comments on the story - and points out that the mistake was to keep telling the same lie and a lie that is easy to very is a lie.

wslh 12y ago

Re Stories focusing on the positive aspects It reminds me of this article/discussion: "Fighting in front of your children - not such a bad thing?". The positive aspect is giving the whole picture of the drama, showing that things, sometimes, can be solved in a peaceful/negotiated way. [1] http://www.parentdish.co.uk/kids/fighting-in-front-of-your-children-not-such-a-bad-thing/ http://www.parentdish.co.uk/kids/fighting-in-front-of-your-c...

naturalethic 12y ago

Gotta love it when morality tales are crossed with government worship. It's a twofer.

droithomme 12y ago

I don't doubt their measurements, but as is so common with these sorts of studies their conclusions are completely interpretive according to their own whims. The George Washington story matches the subsequent experience of the child. The child is asked if they did the bad thing, just exactly as George Washington was asked in the story. A very young child will be able to make the connection between what is happening and the story they just heard because the exact same thing is going down. The other stories are more abstract. They are not stories of someone doing a bad thing and then being asked if they did the bad thing. It's a more reasonable conclusion, in my opinion, that what we are seeing is an effect of how close the story is to the experience, without having to rely on abstraction skills a very young child does not possess. And not whether the outcome was good or bad. In general the study design is poor and more people should have seen that. There are numerous differences between these stories, hundreds of differences, not just outcome. And one of the stories being much closer to what they are testing is obviously relevant and confounding. A better study design would be able to explore this. For example, tell the children one of the following stories: 1. George Washington does a bad thing and is asked if he did it. When he says yes, he is rewarded. 2. George Washington does a bad thing and is asked if he did it. When he says yes, he is punished. 3. George Washington does a bad thing. He is not asked if he did it, but is rewarded by fate. 4. George Washington does a bad thing. He is not asked if he did it, but is punished by fate. 5. George Washington does a good thing and is asked if he did it. When he says yes, he is rewarded. 6. George Washington does a good thing and is asked if he did it. When he says yes, he is punished. 7. George Washington does a good thing. He is not asked if he did it, but is rewarded by fate. 8. George Washington does a good thing. He is not asked if he did it, but is punished by fate.