Cool thread here, thanks
We also must consider that any interpretation of any research may not be what is actually going on, there is always the actual physical results and then the interpretation, where the interpretation in most cases gives us a view into the scientist’s mind, and the main physiological accepted points of view that are being researched at the same time period, rather than what is actually happening – I mean, it’s clear that they are trying to figure out the human psyche for years, and each time they find a new twist or theory or idea – are they getting any closer? – I don’t know…
Anyway, here they are looking at it from a perspective of social reputation, as social manipulation, because that is what they have concluded with the adults, but we can consider other options to explain the children’s behavior as well, and with each option of interpretation we chose to believe/ accept, we have different outflow of following researches and other possibilities if application of the new knowledge found.
An alternative interpretation may be that children are not abstract thinker at the age of 5, they don’t conceive of things as adults do, and so when the receiver is not in the room and the child is told to give some of their stickers to an idea of a person which they can hardly grasp, as oppose to an actual person, it places the child in a different position – giving to a real kid that the child can relate to and can assume they will enjoy receiving more stickers, or giving to an idea of a kid, that doesn’t exist as far as the child is concerned, so it make sense to give them as little as possible.
I would take this to show the point as kelly mentioned, “out of sight out of mind” syndrome, that what we don’t see we don’t care about, that’s why we don’t care about what is going on in the world, we know poverty and suffering is there as an abstract idea, so we don’t share our food and wealth, because it’s easier not share with an abstract idea, rather than with a person that is right here in my face.
Another point to consider is – so what can we do with this information? It implies that privacy gives us more leeway to harm and abuse, and when we are being watched and are seen we are more likely to “behave”, which is what Bernard has been saying about how abusive privacy actually is, rather than a basic right it is more like the right to abuse in privacy.