I… I don’t even… he Photoshopped the evidence into their actual hiking expedition… but… look, how far does this have to go before your kids are justified in wondering whether the world around them was created by you for the sole purpose of deceiving them?
I know, and come on, just how stupid are those kids if they believe that? I mean everyone knows that Ewoks live on the forest moon of Endor. And that’s in a galaxy far, far away. Not only that it was a long time ago. They didn’t occupy a stable evolutionary niche so the species as we know it wouldn’t even exist now. If the kids believe they see Ewoks that must mean that they haven’t been taught about evolution. What sort of parent would do that to their children?
how far does this have to go before your kids are justified in wondering whether the world around them was created by you for the sole purpose of deceiving them?
Seeing that normal parents deceive should be enough.
The more parents deviate from the norm, the more control they have over the weird content.
Deception of children for the purpose challenging them to spot the inconstancy is common practice in my experience. In this case though the inferential distance seems like it would be way to large to overcome with out additional evidence.
The additional evidence is often the parent taking on a different tone of voice and method of reasoning while presenting faked evidence. Which makes it hard to tell if the parent is going too far in this example.
If the purpose of this system is what it does, POSIWID, then this tradition of deceiving often trains children to look for verification of presented evidence, trains them not to take one data point too seriously, as well as to not always to take what is said at face value no matter who says it.
Ideally the deception would be just the right inferential distance to stretch the child maximally while still being able to overcome it.
Some people are bound to participate in the tradition with out understanding its purpose and achieve ill results. As is with participating in any tradition with out understanding what its results commonly are.
The Ewok deception.
I… I don’t even… he Photoshopped the evidence into their actual hiking expedition… but… look, how far does this have to go before your kids are justified in wondering whether the world around them was created by you for the sole purpose of deceiving them?
I know, and come on, just how stupid are those kids if they believe that? I mean everyone knows that Ewoks live on the forest moon of Endor. And that’s in a galaxy far, far away. Not only that it was a long time ago. They didn’t occupy a stable evolutionary niche so the species as we know it wouldn’t even exist now. If the kids believe they see Ewoks that must mean that they haven’t been taught about evolution. What sort of parent would do that to their children?
Seeing that normal parents deceive should be enough.
The more parents deviate from the norm, the more control they have over the weird content.
Deception of children for the purpose challenging them to spot the inconstancy is common practice in my experience. In this case though the inferential distance seems like it would be way to large to overcome with out additional evidence. The additional evidence is often the parent taking on a different tone of voice and method of reasoning while presenting faked evidence. Which makes it hard to tell if the parent is going too far in this example.
If the purpose of this system is what it does, POSIWID, then this tradition of deceiving often trains children to look for verification of presented evidence, trains them not to take one data point too seriously, as well as to not always to take what is said at face value no matter who says it.
Ideally the deception would be just the right inferential distance to stretch the child maximally while still being able to overcome it.
Some people are bound to participate in the tradition with out understanding its purpose and achieve ill results. As is with participating in any tradition with out understanding what its results commonly are.