 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/09/01/iowa-leads-way-on-child-manipulation-newest-study-finds-guilt-ridden-kids-less-likely-to-stab-peers-later-in-life/
Basically, a study was performed on two year old kids. They were handed
a toy, and told that it was very important to the researcher. The toy
was rigged so it would fall apart when the kids handled it, and they got
a healthy dose of guilt out of it.
Fast forward a few years, and the kids who had "had the most acute
reaction to breaking the toy had the fewest behavioral problems. The
researchers posit that kids who are introduced to the
soon-to-be-lifelong-companion guilt at an early age learn self-control
and conscientiousness based on the memories of the terrible feeling
generated by Letting Somebody Down."
Why do the researcher see this as being plausible? It seems much more
likely to me that the kids who (will eventually) have the fewest
behavioral problems are the ones who are most likely to display an
"acute reaction" to guilt.
In other words, while the researchers think that experiencing guilt
teaches kids to behave, I think kids who behave are more likely to feel
guilt.
Or am I missing something?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/09/01/iowa-leads-way-on-child-manipulation-newest-study-finds-guilt-ridden-kids-less-likely-to-stab-peers-later-in-life/
>
> In other words, while the researchers think that experiencing guilt
> teaches kids to behave, I think kids who behave are more likely to feel
> guilt.
tr00
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers schrieb:
> Why do the researcher see this as being plausible? It seems much more
> likely to me that the kids who (will eventually) have the fewest
> behavioral problems are the ones who are most likely to display an
> "acute reaction" to guilt.
May be, maybe not. To find out, a control group would have to be
established where the kids would not be subject to the same
guilt-evoking scenario... nor any similar, for that matter.
It seems pretty unlikely to me that this toy event would have been the
only potentially-guilt-evoking event in the childrens' lifetime...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Basically, a study was performed...
Most studies are flawed in some way or another, even some that have very
serious consequences (look how the MMR Autism "study" has resulted in a
massive increase in mumps in the UK). Some seem to flawed because the
people who did it are just dumb, and others because they are being funded by
some company that wants a certain result. A shame really.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why do the researcher see this as being plausible? It seems much more
> likely to me that the kids who (will eventually) have the fewest
> behavioral problems are the ones who are most likely to display an "acute
> reaction" to guilt.
Well, either the researchers were unaware of the difference between
correlation and causation (which is taught in introductory level
statistics), or a website named blogs.howstuffworks.com isn't accurately
conveying the conclusions drawn by the study.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> ...and others because they are being
> funded by some company that wants a certain result. A shame really.
It's always taken as a given that if company/interest X pays for a
study, it will invariably be skewed or completely biased in their
favour. While it says a lot about presumed human motivation and
virtuousness (or lack thereof), a question arises in my mind: *is* it
always (or even most often) the case? Are we all just corrupt, petty
entities?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, either the researchers were unaware of the difference between
> correlation and causation (which is taught in introductory level
> statistics), or a website named blogs.howstuffworks.com isn't accurately
> conveying the conclusions drawn by the study.
Yeah, I found an abstract of the study...
After doing the short "how guilty did the kid feel about
breaking the toy" test, they broke the kids into a
control group and a group that recieved "effortful control"
training, the guilty feeling kids in the control
group did as good later as the kids getting training,
but the kids that didn't feel guilty in the control group
were more likely to have problems than the trained
kids.
So they really proved it both ways. The kids that
have guilt by nature don't need the guilt trips, but
the un-guilty kids improved from repeated exposure
to guilt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> It's always taken as a given that if company/interest X pays for a
> study, it will invariably be skewed or completely biased in their
> favour. While it says a lot about presumed human motivation and
> virtuousness (or lack thereof), a question arises in my mind: *is* it
> always (or even most often) the case? Are we all just corrupt, petty
> entities?
Someone should pay for a study to find out...
;)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> *is* it always (or even most often) the case?
That would be another example. It's not *always* the case. But then, would a
company fund a study and then publish the results if it actually went
against them? As in, there are 1000 things you could study about your
product. Why would you fund a study that has a good probability of putting
your product in a bad light? By the time you do the study, you already have
a *pretty* good idea of how it's likely to come out, or you wouldn't fund
the study.
And of course, if you fund a study about (say) the quality of your printers,
and you find out that your printer is only meh compared to the competition,
why would you publish that study?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> In other words, while the researchers think that experiencing guilt
> teaches kids to behave, I think kids who behave are more likely to feel
> guilt.
I think the latin for that is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
