Try playing a popular board game with someone of average or below average intelligence. Try proposing before the game a set of rule changes. The response will be “no lets keep the default rules to keep it fair”, even if the game is broken or
imbalanced and even if you can explain to them why this is so. Is this an irrational position for them to take?
If you observed a game in a parallel world where everyone is smarter by one or two standard deviations, I think their response would basically be the same. But if you just raise your and their IQ in this universe I think their response may well differ. Can anyone see why I think this is so?
I also noted that intelligent people may be more vulnerable to this because they are unused to mistrusting their own wits when evaluating the arguments of clever others. People probably have all sorts of bad associations with this kind of advice but pause to consider if you would wish your five year old to respond to reasonable arguments from random strangers wanting entry into your house or asking him to follow them. Also note that the few cases when this might be a good idea (policeman, fireman, ..) can be explicitly discuses and implemented in the little tyke’s brain.
An unsupervised five-year-old will let a stranger indoors, take candy from a stranger, play with a gun he finds etc. no matter what you drill into him.
Anecdotally, there was a particular incident when I was 6 and specifically didn’t open the door for a stranger because my parents told me not to. It turns out it was the postman.
But regardless, surely telling a 5 year old not to take candy from a stranger no matter the stranger’s reasoning is better than not doing so.
When I was 6, my mother and I accepted a ride home from the park. I was very reluctant. I told my mother that she might not know, but I had learned in school that one should not accept rides from strangers.
Another anecdote of very young children being able to internalize and comprehend rules.
You did go along for the ride right because you trusted your mother’s judgement. All else being equal I would say you where better off with your default position being not taking rides from strangers and not listening to their arguments.
Remember I was only talking about superior minds one dosen’t fully trust. In that case you fully trusted your mother and it was best that you outsourced the judgement call to her.
An unsupervised five-year-old will let a stranger indoors, take candy from a stranger, play with a gun he finds etc. no matter what you drill into him.
I don’t believe I would have done any of those things—and my parents would agree. Comprehension and implementation of rules was well within the realm of my capabilities and I was only rebellious against or defiant of rules I thought were stupid. Not those that could be explained (“that is dangerous and kills people”) or those that I was already indifferent to (I would only have answered the door out of a sense of obligation or kindness anyway, I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to.)
“No matter what you drill into him” sets a fairly high bar of stupidity.
I came to a very similar conclusion some time ago.
I also noted that intelligent people may be more vulnerable to this because they are unused to mistrusting their own wits when evaluating the arguments of clever others. People probably have all sorts of bad associations with this kind of advice but pause to consider if you would wish your five year old to respond to reasonable arguments from random strangers wanting entry into your house or asking him to follow them. Also note that the few cases when this might be a good idea (policeman, fireman, ..) can be explicitly discuses and implemented in the little tyke’s brain.
An unsupervised five-year-old will let a stranger indoors, take candy from a stranger, play with a gun he finds etc. no matter what you drill into him.
Anecdotally, there was a particular incident when I was 6 and specifically didn’t open the door for a stranger because my parents told me not to. It turns out it was the postman.
But regardless, surely telling a 5 year old not to take candy from a stranger no matter the stranger’s reasoning is better than not doing so.
When I was 6, my mother and I accepted a ride home from the park. I was very reluctant. I told my mother that she might not know, but I had learned in school that one should not accept rides from strangers.
Another anecdote of very young children being able to internalize and comprehend rules.
You did go along for the ride right because you trusted your mother’s judgement. All else being equal I would say you where better off with your default position being not taking rides from strangers and not listening to their arguments.
Remember I was only talking about superior minds one dosen’t fully trust. In that case you fully trusted your mother and it was best that you outsourced the judgement call to her.
I guess so. I only mean that I think children don’t so closely resemble stupid adults. Even bad-tempered children are pretty docile.
There are exceptions.
I don’t believe I would have done any of those things—and my parents would agree. Comprehension and implementation of rules was well within the realm of my capabilities and I was only rebellious against or defiant of rules I thought were stupid. Not those that could be explained (“that is dangerous and kills people”) or those that I was already indifferent to (I would only have answered the door out of a sense of obligation or kindness anyway, I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to.)
“No matter what you drill into him” sets a fairly high bar of stupidity.