that you continue to reject new information only demonstrates your lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Did I miss something? Did you actually supply any “new information”, other than your anecdotal evidence?
Before you accuse me of being close-minded, you should probably supply some actual data for my mind to be open to.
I don’t require any anecdotal evidence
Why did you supply it, then?
Clearly you can’t cope with a reality where your child would attempt to deceive you.
Adding “clearly” doesn’t make any of your jumping to conclusions any less ludicrous. Stop trying to psychoanalyse strangers on the internet. That’s what we here consider “dickish behaviour”.
Their teenage years are going to be rather enlightening for you.
What? I said that you need a theory of mind that’s advanced enough to deceive someone and that this stage of ToM comes at around four. Suggesting that I think that my child woudn’t keep secrets from me as a teenager implies that I think that they’ll never develop a ToM (which would be a severe mental disability). And where did I claim that?
I read the article. That wasn’t a study. That was a survey where parents self-reported for their children. Hardly a study that has any scientific merit.
Tat’s part of science, too: Validate if the applied methods where actually worth anything. And aurvey of parents is not how you ro developmental science.
Did I miss something? Did you actually supply any “new information”, other than your anecdotal evidence?
Before you accuse me of being close-minded, you should probably supply some actual data for my mind to be open to.
Why did you supply it, then?
Adding “clearly” doesn’t make any of your jumping to conclusions any less ludicrous. Stop trying to psychoanalyse strangers on the internet. That’s what we here consider “dickish behaviour”.
What? I said that you need a theory of mind that’s advanced enough to deceive someone and that this stage of ToM comes at around four. Suggesting that I think that my child woudn’t keep secrets from me as a teenager implies that I think that they’ll never develop a ToM (which would be a severe mental disability). And where did I claim that?
This article isn’t about teenagers, anyway.
Reading the article apparently
I read the article. That wasn’t a study. That was a survey where parents self-reported for their children. Hardly a study that has any scientific merit.
Tat’s part of science, too: Validate if the applied methods where actually worth anything. And aurvey of parents is not how you ro developmental science.
https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/the-early-deception-survey-eds-its-psychometric-properties-in-chi/
I did say I’d wait for replication but it is absolutely research. Again you fail to understand the scientific method.
You fail to understand quality standards in science.