Saturday, March 2

I've been suffering from something of a book drought these last few days and have consequently had to resort to re-reading White Mars (which is as bad a book as I remembered it to be) and selected parts of The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke (which is as good as I remembered it to be).

But my brain needed new material, so I went off to my favourite bookshop to investigate; unfortunately, while they did have some great value books, I already owned them. A bit depressed from this lack of reading material, I sat in front of my computer and typed in "diamond age" etext into Google. A few clicks later and I had a full copy of The Diamond Age (an excellent SF novel by Neal Stephenson) on my computer, as well as a copy of Neuromancer by William Gibson for later perusal.

How do I feel about this? Well, my immediate feeling was of pleasure that I had something decent to read. Then came the faint nagging suspicion that perhaps the download of novels from the Internet isn't the most moral behaviour you can engage in (and let us not talk of MP3s either!). So I eventually resolved to buy these books when I have the chance - reading books on acomputer using an LCD screen and Cleartype is perfectly good on the eyes, but the experience of actually owning a physical book is something that won't be readily replaced by a bunch of bits on a solid state device, and this is coming from someone who'll be the first in line to buy a flexible electronic ink reader.

0: good or bad? / forum / 12:13 am GMT

Wednesday, February 27

Children exhibit some rather peculiar beliefs when they are young. In the phase of mental development that some call preoperational thought, which lasts from about two to six years old, children are non-conservative. This has nothing to do with political ideologies; instead it refers to children's perception of reality.

There's a very interesting experiment you can do with non-conserving children (if you have one handy, it might be educational to try it out yourself). Get two identically shaped glasses, and fill them up with equal amounts of water. Obviously this should be done in the guise of a game or something or else the kid is going to be a bit confused. Make the child agree that there is an equal amount of water in the glasses. Now, get a long, thin glass, and pour the contents of one of the glasses into it. The long thin glasses should have a higher level of water than the other glass, but of course it has the same volume of water.

Does the child agree that there is an equal amount of water in the glasses though? No. Why not? Because one of the glasses (the long thin one) is filled to a higher level. Very strange.

You can do this sort of thing with lines of sweets, where you get two lines of equal numbers of sweets, which the child will agree are equal, then then spread one line out so that it is longer (the child thinks that there's more sweets in that line - even after counting them).

So you might think, "Oh, this isn't surprising, they're only kids, and no wonder they think that length or height equates to amount." But why 'no wonder'? Why do children suddenly undergo a qualitative change in thinking at about six years old, such that they suddenly become non-conserving and are able to answer these questions properly?

We were shown a very amusing video that showed two kids of the same age arguing over whether two equally long pencil were in fact equally long. The experimenters had placed the kids at opposite ends of a table and places the pencils perpendicular to the children, parallel but slightly staggered next to each other. This meant that each child would see that one of the pencils was slightly further away from him than the other - but of course the pencil in question would differ between the two children since they are looking from opposite directions. They were told to decide amongst themselves which pencil was longer, and when they did they would have to call their teacher and put the pencils back in the way they found them.

Get two non-conserver kids to do this, and much hilarity ensues as each fervently claims that the pencil furthest away from them in longest. If you get one conserver and one non-conserver in (both of the same age - the transition period is variable between individuals), then the situation is more interesting. In nearly all cases, the conserver can prove to the non-conserver that the pencils are equal in length, usually by simply moving the pencils so that they are next to each other. The thing is, non-conservers use logic to bring their partners around, whereas conservers use power (physical or blackmail).

It strikes me that this conservation problem is a rather good analogy when used against any two people with diametrically opposing viewpoints on emotive issues. It's thought that conservers really do believe what they say ('The pencil on the right is longer because it's higher!') because they are more concerned with the appearance of the situation instead of the reality. From their point of view, they are correct - the pencil on the right does seem to be longer. Same for conservers - they know that the pencil on their left does seem to be longer, but they know that in reality it is not. What we have here is a transition from thinking about appearance to reality.

Sometimes I wonder how interesting this might seem to super-intelligent aliens, if they went and kidnapped two people of opposing viewpoints and watched them battle it out on video. They'd probably have a good laugh.

2: good or bad? / forum / 01:01 pm GMT

Powered By Greymatter