@6stringssamurai I believe that you didn't understand the point of the test. It's not explained in the video itself, but the girl gave the correct answers. As ChristopherDone explains the answers need to take into account the hypothetical rules stablished. The girl has developed hypothetical thinking whereas...
if i was the first kid, i'd awnser the questions with how the fuck should i know? maybe that guy is a bitch and can't hit hard, and maybe they shot that feather point-forward into the glass with an airgun.
@MackTuesday HAHAHAHA. That is exactly what I was thinking Mack. If I had been her I would have been worried it was a trick question or that my teachers would have scolded me for not paying close attention to the "directions".
The girl is actually right on this one. If you use reason you would say: 'No! Hitting a glass with a feather won't make it break!' But, rule #1 states that it does. In that context, if A - hitting a glass with a feather - will have reaction B - breaking it - is the law(!) and A occurs because somebody DOES hit the glass with a feather -> B must happen, i.e. the glass would break.
Logically, we would think the feather is that of a birds or is soft, and will not harm glass.
However, when given in a form of a truth table, or something that has rules (the feather did in fact break the glass), the answer has to be that when don hit it with the feather, the glass did break.
I got to say, even adults I know would say it didn't break, sadly.
@TheSaiyanKing Not, they're not. On any other basis I would agree with you that the question was too loose to answer, but she gave rules to the question. If there are rules to a question, the question has to follow the rule set, which being in this case, the rules stated that when a feather hits a glass it breaks. When given the question, don hit the glass with a feather, the only answer is that it broke. You can't say it won't because it was already stated as a truth.
Dang that little kid looked about the same age as those stage 2 kids and he even talked with the same type of same speech impediment but he was capable of deductive reasoning!! what a badass
The boy clearly didn't understand the concept of the test. He didn't know that he had to follow the rules presented as axioms. Many adults still don't understand this concept.
I don't think this demonstrates much. He thinks the card is lying and the reader is talking shit. She is. She's not framing it properly. The only thing the older kid has over the younger kid is experience at recognising these kind of questions, not deductive reasoning. You should give him a different rule, like; if you push the button then the red light comes on. John pushes the button, what happens? I GUARANTEE, the kid would've said the red light comes on. Fuck this video.
@ChristopherDone See, you lack the ability to do deductive reasoning. You aren't capable of considering whether or not the feather would break the glass. You just assume it doesn't, even though the rule is that it will. What if the feather is made of iron? She didn't say it was a bird feather.
You made an assumption, and because of it, you couldn't reason properly.
@ChristopherDone There's nothing pedantic about what I said. I don't value education or knowledge NEARLY so much as I value a person's ability to reason logically. It's merely bothering that you aren't capable of reasoning logically, because you rely upon what you think you already know is true.
@TheKingdomofErnor I empathized with the child's misinterpretation of the questioner’s poorly worded question, and offer a clearer example. You accuse me of lacking “the ability” to reason deductively. I understand what the questioner’s intent was. And your argument “what if a feather is made of iron?” is nonsense; what the feather is made of is irrelevant; that's the point of the rule. Supposing that the feather is made of different material is missing the point.
@ChristopherDone I didn't make any assumptions, and your example would defeat the purpose of the test. The purpose of the test is to ignore what you think is true, to follow a hypothetical scenario, and determine what would be the result of something following the hypothetical rules.
I agree with you, though, that the kid probably doesn't understand that that's what's being tested. It seems like that didn't explain it to him properly.
@ChristopherDone I agree completely. If the test shows anything then it is that the kid doesn't know what is expected from him, not that he can't use deductive reasoning.
@xaombie Actually, it's quite the opposite. If he doesn't change he will continue taking what he knows and has seen as fact and never look at things in a different way. If he can do deductive reasoning however he can take a source of information and tell whether it's viable in the circumstances. You're misunderstanding the test here, the point isn't that an adult more easily conforms to what they're told, the point is that an adult can see correlations between things better.
That's a very helpful video, make me understand Piaget's idea of abstract thinking in children better. For all of those who r questioning about it, please, read something about Piaget or psychology or the comments made by others with explanation first!
When you say, "and this is the second rule." I clearly see his eyebrow raise questioning the basis of what a rule is... If you had defined what a rule is, or at least if you would have shown that the kid knows that the "first part" is a rule... I would be less critic of this experiment.
I would suggest that you change this one. It does not really address abstract thinking but more the modalities of thought. The older lady does not think more abstractly, I'd argue she thinks with a less abstract mind. The child performed a thought experiment, the lady just went along with the rules of this test. -Perhaps this video should show the lady with the hammer, I would likely disagree with the second part because the first part assumes you can use your own intelligence to solve the issue
From what I've learnt, I think the girl is supposed to be the "right" one.
Deductive logic uses a general principle, that is the feather breaks the glass, to determine the specific outcome, that is the feather WILL break the glass. At this stage, a child is able to rely on outcomes beyond their previous experiences (which the boy is unable to do since he relies on his previous knowledge that feathers cannot break glass) to consider other possible outcomes.
@hottiepocky I dont think either deduction is "correct", theyre just different cognitive stages. The point of this was to show that in the formal operations stage, you are able to perceive possible, rather than actual outcomes, whereas in the concrete operational stage, your comprehension of the world is based solely on past experiences, without the ability to hypothesise
so... Which one is supposed to be right? The one that followed common sense, or the one that followed the rules presented? Which has better deductive reasoning?
@dereks76nova There's no wrong or right. It's just an experiment that shows different stages of thinking in the development of a child.
The girl was older and she was able to use abstract logic. The boy was younger and didn't develop abstract logic yet, so he immediately saw the picture of someone hitting a glass with a feather and thought that was silly.
funny is, i'm pretty sure the lady didn't tell them to assume the hypothetical premise that what's written on the cards is true for all cards on the table (because neither the little boy nor the girl would understand a couple of those words)
this means that the girl was wrong, and the boy was right. if you hit a glass with a feather, nothing happens to it, save maybe it would add or blow off some dust or something.
unless you sweep it off the table with the feather, that is...
nothing to do with deductive reasoning tho (although depending on what she said before the vid starts it might have a bit more validity)
there's about 5 trillion development variables they would need to single out to conclude that deductive reasoning is the only thing being tested here but of course psychology is a pseudo science invented by egotistic power trippers who look up to monsters like Seligman who think torturing animals is insightful
@brosephjames Obviously you've never really studied psychology...Tests like these have been replicated extensively and have a great deal of empirical evidence behind them. If you don't believe that hypothesis -> experiment -> reassess hypothesis-> experiment again -> theory is science, then I haven't a clue what kind of books they gave you in school.
Or perhaps you yourself suppose to know more about how the brain works and why humans behave the way they do than, say, Wechsler or Skinner?
@brosephjames I have no idea where you got that idea from or how you could possibly justify it. If you're implying that science kills people because of weapons, etc., this I can't deny; but it has also prolonged every human's lifespan by 300% over the last few hundred years, spurred us toward equality, and saved millions upon billions upon trillions of lives with vaccines, evolving cancer treatments, surgeries...the list is almost endless.
@breathofexodus00 And even beyond that, 'Science' isn't a thing, it has nothing to do with conscientiousness of its own, it's what allows us to do what we want with what we discover to be true about the world. You listed some good examples of what the field of science has offered humans, and I think brosephjames needs a lobotomy.
@brosephjames Wow, I know your comment needs no retort, but it's one of the dumbest things I've seen someone write on the internet. I'm sure all would agree. Congratulations for marginalizing yourself out of the average-or-above-I.Q. group of human beings.
No, she makes a rule: The feather breaks the glass. Than she asks what happens if Don hits the glass with a feather. If you follow the rule, the glass has to break. The little boy is still in a stage where he can't think in an abstract way, he just thinks 'what the hell! a feather can't break a glass!'
lmao so is the kid smarter?
datgurlkeisha 1 week ago
this proves that as we grow up, we lose our common sense
dadvoc666 1 week ago
This particular feather is made of steel that's why it broke the glass. :D
antaress8128 4 weeks ago
becwuz the pweble's soft! ....so cute!
exstudent1 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Fi3021
becwuz the pweble's soft! ....so soft
exstudent1 2 months ago in playlist More videos from Fi3021
FOR ALL YOU GENIUSES OUT THERE, IF YOU LOOKED AT THE TITLE OF THE VIDEO, maybe you'd understand the purpose of her "ambiguous" answer
hudene 2 months ago
LOL WAS THAT BITCH STUPID?
flore6421 3 months ago
@flore6421 no, she followed the rule that was being read out to her. Pay attention.
shadyfridge 3 months ago
@flore6421 :D You are kidding, right? If not, then you are stupid.
antaress8128 4 weeks ago
Black girl = the next president
xxoocobraooxx 4 months ago
@xxoocobraooxx look at the title of the video again...maybe you'll understand why she answered the way she did =)
hudene 2 months ago
I think the boy fails at hypothetical thinking, not deductive reasoning.
khaine114 5 months ago
@khaine114 yes, i think he is still in concrete operational stage, and it was just demonstrating the difference between it.
MisceyAsh21 1 month ago
so if ur older ur more susceptible to bullshit because of sarcastic high school tests?
RidinRouteGuano 5 months ago 2
the first kid was in the concrete stage right?
carolin988 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that black biatch is soooooo stupid
6stringssamurai 6 months ago
@6stringssamurai I believe that you didn't understand the point of the test. It's not explained in the video itself, but the girl gave the correct answers. As ChristopherDone explains the answers need to take into account the hypothetical rules stablished. The girl has developed hypothetical thinking whereas...
smismo 4 months ago
little kid "bitch you wrong, that feather wont do that"
bananarama075 6 months ago
did the kid say the camel's hard at 0:18 ?
juutuubbbbbb 6 months ago
@juutuubbbbbb No he did not say that he said "because the hammer is hard." He does not pronounce his R's very well.
0154sm 5 months ago
if i was the first kid, i'd awnser the questions with how the fuck should i know? maybe that guy is a bitch and can't hit hard, and maybe they shot that feather point-forward into the glass with an airgun.
straaler5 6 months ago
I love the look on the kids face when she says "Dawn hit a glass with a hammer."
He looks at her like "Why the f*ck would Dawn do that?"
Ato0theJ 6 months ago in playlist Cognitive Development - Piaget Stages 5
it depends on the speed if the feather hits the glass with 3000 km/h it will break
MrHthtehtehth 6 months ago
I would argue that this is ambiguous. It isn't clear whether the girl had better deductive reasoning or better test taking skills.
MackTuesday 6 months ago 3
@MackTuesday HAHAHAHA. That is exactly what I was thinking Mack. If I had been her I would have been worried it was a trick question or that my teachers would have scolded me for not paying close attention to the "directions".
BlatantlyBritt 6 months ago 2
I agree with the little boy. You have to judge the rules using logic before you apply the rule. Otherwise why do we have judgment?
ExZonie 6 months ago
Chuck norris can break glass with a feather.
lauwef 6 months ago 15
this is just like saying which weighs more, a pound of rocks, or a pound of feathers
LaxSKOOTx21 6 months ago
The girl is actually right on this one. If you use reason you would say: 'No! Hitting a glass with a feather won't make it break!' But, rule #1 states that it does. In that context, if A - hitting a glass with a feather - will have reaction B - breaking it - is the law(!) and A occurs because somebody DOES hit the glass with a feather -> B must happen, i.e. the glass would break.
patatjejoppiesaus 6 months ago
@patatjejoppiesaus You're high.
SlapDaBassMon 6 months ago
i could break a glass with a feather. give me a big enough feather and put the glass on the edge of the table
novacane417 6 months ago
o_O holy shit.. smart people alert
stepxunit 6 months ago
What more proof do you want that boys are smarter than girls?
hpufo 6 months ago 6
Logically, we would think the feather is that of a birds or is soft, and will not harm glass.
However, when given in a form of a truth table, or something that has rules (the feather did in fact break the glass), the answer has to be that when don hit it with the feather, the glass did break.
I got to say, even adults I know would say it didn't break, sadly.
YdOuUmRb 6 months ago 2
@YdOuUmRb Because they don't specify what type of feather and what type of glass, both answers are kinda correct.
TheSaiyanKing 6 months ago
@TheSaiyanKing Not, they're not. On any other basis I would agree with you that the question was too loose to answer, but she gave rules to the question. If there are rules to a question, the question has to follow the rule set, which being in this case, the rules stated that when a feather hits a glass it breaks. When given the question, don hit the glass with a feather, the only answer is that it broke. You can't say it won't because it was already stated as a truth.
YdOuUmRb 6 months ago
both were correct lol...
MrSimSimaa 6 months ago
Dang that little kid looked about the same age as those stage 2 kids and he even talked with the same type of same speech impediment but he was capable of deductive reasoning!! what a badass
uberrific2408 6 months ago
feathers sucks.
MrPkownzz 6 months ago 2
Wow. So many educated, Piaget enthusiasts offering thoughtful comments about this video!!! I guess 'Murica isn't as stupid as they say...
bjorsak 6 months ago
"Don hit a glass with a hammer."
"I knew that too."
LOL
MavrikX182 6 months ago 46
@MavrikX182
i lol at that too.
jigsaw99 6 months ago
The boy clearly didn't understand the concept of the test. He didn't know that he had to follow the rules presented as axioms. Many adults still don't understand this concept.
TheKingdomofErnor 6 months ago 3
This researcher is the only one in these videos that can't do deductive reasoning.
DrAngercrank 6 months ago
It seems to me like some people in the comments section are too stupid to understand this properly.
8Bit64 6 months ago
Chuck Norris hit a glass with a feather, and the glass broke.
Poopstickplaza 6 months ago 7
I don't think this demonstrates much. He thinks the card is lying and the reader is talking shit. She is. She's not framing it properly. The only thing the older kid has over the younger kid is experience at recognising these kind of questions, not deductive reasoning. You should give him a different rule, like; if you push the button then the red light comes on. John pushes the button, what happens? I GUARANTEE, the kid would've said the red light comes on. Fuck this video.
ChristopherDone 6 months ago 2
@ChristopherDone I guess you don't have the ability to deductively reason. Please stay away from sharp objects and important life decisions.
pauleanonymous 6 months ago
@ChristopherDone See, you lack the ability to do deductive reasoning. You aren't capable of considering whether or not the feather would break the glass. You just assume it doesn't, even though the rule is that it will. What if the feather is made of iron? She didn't say it was a bird feather.
You made an assumption, and because of it, you couldn't reason properly.
TheKingdomofErnor 6 months ago 4
@TheKingdomofErnor Give me a break you pedantic twat.
ChristopherDone 6 months ago
@ChristopherDone There's nothing pedantic about what I said. I don't value education or knowledge NEARLY so much as I value a person's ability to reason logically. It's merely bothering that you aren't capable of reasoning logically, because you rely upon what you think you already know is true.
TheKingdomofErnor 6 months ago
@TheKingdomofErnor I empathized with the child's misinterpretation of the questioner’s poorly worded question, and offer a clearer example. You accuse me of lacking “the ability” to reason deductively. I understand what the questioner’s intent was. And your argument “what if a feather is made of iron?” is nonsense; what the feather is made of is irrelevant; that's the point of the rule. Supposing that the feather is made of different material is missing the point.
Consider your own assumptions.
ChristopherDone 6 months ago
@ChristopherDone I didn't make any assumptions, and your example would defeat the purpose of the test. The purpose of the test is to ignore what you think is true, to follow a hypothetical scenario, and determine what would be the result of something following the hypothetical rules.
I agree with you, though, that the kid probably doesn't understand that that's what's being tested. It seems like that didn't explain it to him properly.
TheKingdomofErnor 6 months ago
@ChristopherDone I agree completely. If the test shows anything then it is that the kid doesn't know what is expected from him, not that he can't use deductive reasoning.
Cinqmil 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DUMB NIGGER
Blaxot 6 months ago
Maybe she thought it was in of those IQ , like if a zig is zam and son on,or she's trained to follow rules without question.
littlelyera 6 months ago
alternate pressing 3 and 6 for a young lad's introductory course to hard and soft objects.
or keep pressing 4 to see birdboy berate the test giver
johnstonno 6 months ago 4
Comment removed
johnstonno 6 months ago
i'd hit it........with a stick
TheChicoTank 6 months ago
that girl looks like she's 15....
endlsswing 6 months ago 2
@gingerkid963 Good, I hope he stays that way. So he can question things and think for himself and not be controlled by society and T.V.
xaombie 6 months ago
@xaombie Actually, it's quite the opposite. If he doesn't change he will continue taking what he knows and has seen as fact and never look at things in a different way. If he can do deductive reasoning however he can take a source of information and tell whether it's viable in the circumstances. You're misunderstanding the test here, the point isn't that an adult more easily conforms to what they're told, the point is that an adult can see correlations between things better.
bananavice 6 months ago
Lady: "Don hit a glass with a hammer"
Kid: "I knew that too!"
LMFAO
lolitrollulol 6 months ago 6
this one doesn't seem as revealing as the others... not sure i follow the reasoning in it.
Liteboyiam 6 months ago
0:22 epic.
coolgamer1677 9 months ago
Comment removed
coolgamer1677 9 months ago
The kid was smarter, questioned the rules and authority, and broke the system.
coolgamer1677 9 months ago 50
wtf
rufmemory 9 months ago
Lil dude has the cutest accent!
jboggey1993 9 months ago
meanwhile in America...
123qwerty 11 months ago 4
so cute
doubtfuldreamer 11 months ago
That's a very helpful video, make me understand Piaget's idea of abstract thinking in children better. For all of those who r questioning about it, please, read something about Piaget or psychology or the comments made by others with explanation first!
HildaPossible 11 months ago
When you say, "and this is the second rule." I clearly see his eyebrow raise questioning the basis of what a rule is... If you had defined what a rule is, or at least if you would have shown that the kid knows that the "first part" is a rule... I would be less critic of this experiment.
JustATheist 11 months ago
I would suggest that you change this one. It does not really address abstract thinking but more the modalities of thought. The older lady does not think more abstractly, I'd argue she thinks with a less abstract mind. The child performed a thought experiment, the lady just went along with the rules of this test. -Perhaps this video should show the lady with the hammer, I would likely disagree with the second part because the first part assumes you can use your own intelligence to solve the issue
JustATheist 11 months ago
this shows that ugly girls are at least smart
Archivioinutile 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NIGGA
pisanghangus 1 year ago
wow...ahem, that girl is smarter than me
Ayumura96 1 year ago 4
From what I've learnt, I think the girl is supposed to be the "right" one.
Deductive logic uses a general principle, that is the feather breaks the glass, to determine the specific outcome, that is the feather WILL break the glass. At this stage, a child is able to rely on outcomes beyond their previous experiences (which the boy is unable to do since he relies on his previous knowledge that feathers cannot break glass) to consider other possible outcomes.
hottiepocky 1 year ago 7
@hottiepocky I dont think either deduction is "correct", theyre just different cognitive stages. The point of this was to show that in the formal operations stage, you are able to perceive possible, rather than actual outcomes, whereas in the concrete operational stage, your comprehension of the world is based solely on past experiences, without the ability to hypothesise
xandygindahouse 11 months ago 3
so... Which one is supposed to be right? The one that followed common sense, or the one that followed the rules presented? Which has better deductive reasoning?
dereks76nova 1 year ago 2
@dereks76nova There's no wrong or right. It's just an experiment that shows different stages of thinking in the development of a child.
The girl was older and she was able to use abstract logic. The boy was younger and didn't develop abstract logic yet, so he immediately saw the picture of someone hitting a glass with a feather and thought that was silly.
vincentjdrummer 1 year ago 11
WTF?
dizave1225 1 year ago
funny is, i'm pretty sure the lady didn't tell them to assume the hypothetical premise that what's written on the cards is true for all cards on the table (because neither the little boy nor the girl would understand a couple of those words)
this means that the girl was wrong, and the boy was right. if you hit a glass with a feather, nothing happens to it, save maybe it would add or blow off some dust or something.
unless you sweep it off the table with the feather, that is...
lygophile 1 year ago
oh I just got this wrong I agreed with the kids :/
ASDogGeek 1 year ago
the kid is so right ahahahhaahah :-D lovely
DritonGusia 1 year ago
thank you so much for this material!!!
whatsthemenu 1 year ago
this seems to test if youre a sell out conformist
nothing to do with deductive reasoning tho (although depending on what she said before the vid starts it might have a bit more validity)
there's about 5 trillion development variables they would need to single out to conclude that deductive reasoning is the only thing being tested here but of course psychology is a pseudo science invented by egotistic power trippers who look up to monsters like Seligman who think torturing animals is insightful
brosephjames 1 year ago
@brosephjames Obviously you've never really studied psychology...Tests like these have been replicated extensively and have a great deal of empirical evidence behind them. If you don't believe that hypothesis -> experiment -> reassess hypothesis-> experiment again -> theory is science, then I haven't a clue what kind of books they gave you in school.
Or perhaps you yourself suppose to know more about how the brain works and why humans behave the way they do than, say, Wechsler or Skinner?
breathofexodus00 1 year ago
@breathofexodus00 sorry but science isn't truth and is responsible for more deaths than anything else imaginable.
brosephjames 1 year ago
@brosephjames I have no idea where you got that idea from or how you could possibly justify it. If you're implying that science kills people because of weapons, etc., this I can't deny; but it has also prolonged every human's lifespan by 300% over the last few hundred years, spurred us toward equality, and saved millions upon billions upon trillions of lives with vaccines, evolving cancer treatments, surgeries...the list is almost endless.
breathofexodus00 1 year ago
@breathofexodus00 And even beyond that, 'Science' isn't a thing, it has nothing to do with conscientiousness of its own, it's what allows us to do what we want with what we discover to be true about the world. You listed some good examples of what the field of science has offered humans, and I think brosephjames needs a lobotomy.
Cazador 1 year ago
@Cazador lobotomy? is that that amazing scientific "advancement" that ruined a lot of peoples lives? Yeah sign me up.
brosephjames 1 year ago
@brosephjames Wow, I know your comment needs no retort, but it's one of the dumbest things I've seen someone write on the internet. I'm sure all would agree. Congratulations for marginalizing yourself out of the average-or-above-I.Q. group of human beings.
Cazador 1 year ago
haha! this is great. i studied this in psychology. i showed this to my 11 year old sister and she was so lost. i had to explain it all to her.
jjjyyynnn 1 year ago
This experiment is way too complicated and has low ecological validity - the children are not used to hitting glass with a feather!!
ilovestarsable 1 year ago
00:39 That's a kid? !!!1
NoLifeGamer17 1 year ago
@NoLifeGamer17 no it's ur mom
finnholger 1 year ago
@finnholger awwwwwww
NoLifeGamer17 1 year ago
LMFAOo.! Wat?
BDB1QT 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I dont understand the second segment of the experiment, is it a joke, does she have some sort of mental disability or is she just dumb.
alek30 2 years ago
No, she makes a rule: The feather breaks the glass. Than she asks what happens if Don hits the glass with a feather. If you follow the rule, the glass has to break. The little boy is still in a stage where he can't think in an abstract way, he just thinks 'what the hell! a feather can't break a glass!'
XguitarrockerX 2 years ago 20
I take it they're interviewing people for a job at the DMV. The boy didn't get the job.
gimmybackmybrains 2 years ago 3
More like he did get the job. Fuck the DMV
StainofPiss69 2 years ago
hahah wtf which one is right! i think the first one would be ahahhah what does that mean!! lolhahaha
dripdroptearsstop 2 years ago
LMFAO!!!
Xtraterestre 2 years ago
the big girl was right.,it's just that she listened and refers to the first situation., and from that she gets the answer: it broke!
DuLcEigN 2 years ago 7
LMFAOOOOOOOOOO.
Beebopbeebo 2 years ago 2
lol! I love the boy's reaction to "if you hit the glass with a feather it will break" NO IT WON'T!
SicaJay 2 years ago 163
does anyone know of any other examples of deductive reasoning on youtube...cant find any?? :)
culakaloo 2 years ago
lol, i love how the girl has this "are you serious?" look on her face.
chocolatelover13 3 years ago 141