gwho Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 In podcast #562, Stefan talks about a scenario of cutting cake among siblings as a tool to teach UPB to children. The scenario is two siblings, who want the most amount of cake. you let one kid cut the cake, but let the other kid choose which slide first. Stefan says this can be used to teach UPB, and i'm sure it can be. But i want more explanation on how because I can see it teaching the complete opposite.First, the kid is concerned with cutting the cake even because of the rules of the game. He is still acting out of self-interest, and perhaps even selfishness. The kid can certainly comprehend fairness and that his sister would end up getting very close to 50% as well. UPB wouldn't necessarily be learned through this, and the parent might have to teach it overtly. My question is how.Second, this can lead to worship of the state. Why? The parent (the state), is laying down the rules. The kid would certainly understand that this rule results in more fairness, as opposed to the kid or his sister getting more or less in greater variance. So the kid can end up learning the lesson that the state is virtuous, and necessary (for without that rule, it would result in fighting and unfair proportions - it may not, but it will be hard for kids to see other solutions.Third, it teaches that you can maximize and focus on self-interest, and still result in fairness, and that it is the responsibility of the parent (state) to set up fair rules. While as an adult, we can appreciate the more subtle lesson that we cannot rely on the goodness of people, but rather things are more stable if people rely on their self interest, but as far as kids... i think this is a sophisticated lesson. They are much more likely to learn that they can shrug off being concerned with fairness, and that maximizing their self-interest can and will result in fairness, as well as inferring that the state should set the rules.Fourth, it will teach the smarter kids to be crafty, set up barriers to entry, and deceive. If the kid cuts the cake in a very complicated manner, so that it is harder for his sister to tell which piece is bigger (relative to the cake being cut in one stroke along the diameter), then it increases the kid's odds of getting a bigger piece. It rewards and directs his efforts into being crafty in a zero-sum game, rather than craft in increasing productivity and wealth for all parties. Now, this skill may be a very useful thing as you get older ( you learn a lot of great things in poker, trading, physical fighting, etc ), and can be channeled for positive endeavors (like being resiliant in face of hardships, being clever to save a company to beat the competition in a legal, legitimate manner, etc ). but for kids??? Also, a smarter kid will use a scale to weigh out the cake's size (or mass), which again is great for cleverness, but the scenario is one of competition and zero-sum and deception and counter-deception. not great for kids imo.I'd love to your hear people's thoughts on these four points.
Mister Mister Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 I am curious what is your experience with kids and sharing and teaching moral lessons. Do you have kids? Did you grow up with siblings?
gwho Posted September 30, 2013 Author Posted September 30, 2013 dont have kids. 1 younger brother. we could go into it deeper, but i'm just coming to these possible conclusions with what occured to me. sure what occured to me can be generated by my unconscious and experiences, but they went through my logical filter. And I do think they are sound propositions in terms of game theory.I look at power, and the worse case scenarios, and what is stopping someone from doing X, just as disarming peaceful citizens gives governments power to screw the people over in the worst case, scenario. I'd like to discuss the topics at hand before going into why and how I came up with these. imagine they came from a magic speakerphone from the sky spoken through an steven hawking voice typed by a remote-accessed computer typed by a hacked robot, instructed by a written will of an algorithmic super computer that processes game theory decisions. lol.
MarkIX Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 "Second, this can lead to worship of the state. Why? The parent (the state), is laying down the rules." The State is not rules. The State is the absence of rules, Just edicts that are backed by force. In any Society there will always be rules.
gwho Posted September 30, 2013 Author Posted September 30, 2013 "Second, this can lead to worship of the state. Why? The parent (the state), is laying down the rules." The State is not rules. The State is the absence of rules, Just edicts that are backed by force. In any Society there will always be rules. as far as kids are concerned, they are.Remember the podcast about a listener criticizing his sister for being a socialist... due to their child hood stories about easter egg hunts? The sister certainly took home the lesson that a state to regulate fairness was necessary. Kids can very easily end up inferring this lesson too. Considering the alternatives in the kid's short term unfolding of scenarios, which is rushing, fighting, crying, over the cake (if you don't believe me, you need to get in touch with your childhood and find some friends with kids and watch some sibling interactions) There is not DRO equivalent for kids in this scenario.EVERYTHING in this thread that I post is prefaced by "what a child is likely to pick up on"
Recommended Posts