Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by agkm800, Aug 30, 2009.
What is the smartest (or the most interesting) question you've heard recently?
My own, which neither my friends nor google can answer.
Why do children trust almost everything/everybody when they're, well, children?
Because they're too young to have been deceived before.
Why not default to not trusting? In a wild environment, which is what, technically, we should naturally be living in, I guess, I think that'd make most sense.
Oooh. This ones good. I got it off yahoo answers this morning.
"How can you answer this question without typing?"
Good aint it?
We evolved past that point. We're not in a wild environment now.
Domestic dogs trust humans since birth too, they only start acting out if they are mistreated later on and they're "wilder" than we are.
When was the point in time where we were no longer in a wild environment? Because I'd consider some cities, countries and towns to be very wild.
Obviously not: when you are a helpless infant you have to trust.
Not in the slightest. I think it's a thing of whether we're capable of doubting or not. Maybe our minds, at that age, can't produce a situation in the mind that would play out an event where betrayal would occur.
What would be the evolutionary advantage of not trusting as an infant? You would starve to death within hours.
I'd say, be skeptical. I'm talking about a situation where a child trusts an unknown adult with tampered food or whatnot. I honestly remember accepting candy from unknown people as a child. I never entered any vans, but I did accept candy! And boy, did I get a speech once my parents found out.
I feel smarter just reading the conversation above!
That's the thing. When you're born you have to trust. Then, when you grow up, unless you're told otherwise or something bad happens, you'll keep trusting.
Be skeptical. As a baby? It takes a long time to develop a level of judegement, Shirley?
That's what I guessed. Too bad.
And don't call me Shirley!
I used to be very skeptical as a kid. But then again I grew up in ********vania. It was perfectly obvious, everyone lied all the time, just to get kids to stop questioning anything. People just made up facts to scare kids into shutting up. That is, when they weren't smacked around in the first place.
Adults used to make fun of how incredibly stupid and gullible kids were by feeding them false information and then laughing at them. It was kind of sad. And scary in how much they enjoyed it. I can count on one hand the times I've seen any parent, back when I was at that age, who didn't treat their kid as some kind of possession.
It's not just children, everybody trusts pretty much everything. Think about how much you actually trust in during the course of a day...
You trust that:
The roof over your head won't collapse.
The electricity will stay on.
Your food is not going to kill you.
(Most) People will obey traffic rules.
Your Mac's gonna turn on.
Every thing we do, there is a HUGE level of trust involved. It's rare that we don't trust something, and it's usually because we have a good reason.
As for the OP, I can't really say I've heard a smart question recently. Sad, isn't it?
Lack of trust is paranoia: a sickness. Whether warranted or not, it involves an anguished mental state; a state that no rational mind will default to.
Because for the most part, people take care of children. We feed them, bathe them, clothe them, hug them when they get a boo-boo, comfort them when they have bad dreams. All the food they've been given by their parents and those who care for them has not been tampered with. At that point, all they've known is that grownups can (and should) be trusted.
Like anjinhamarota said, once they experience examples of grownups not being trustworthy, then that all changes.
I think that's kind of vague. In certain situations, rational minds have every reason to default to what you call paranoia. Also, actual paranoia is by definition unwarranted.
Just this morning, after a long time, I was preparing tea for me and my wife. (Generally she makes it.) My 6 year old son saw me in the kitchen and asked my wife - was it OK that Dad was making the tea - does he know? To which my wife replied - yes Dad knows how to make tea and it was OK.
After the tea was ready I wasn't so confident it tasted as refined as it does daily and so I asked my wife - "Honey tea is on the table, see if anything is wrong".
My son asked my wife a question which amused me - "How could the tea have gone wrong if Dad *knows* (emphasis his) how to make tea?"
I answered him that it wasn't just about knowing - it was also about practice which I did not had.
Nothing vague at all. Dumbing it down a bit: either the individual has good reason not to trust people or he doesn't. Either way he isn't at his, let's say, happiest frame of mind. The original question was why children default to trusting. To not trust the child would have to put himself in a less happy frame of mind. Why would any child do that?
By tea I presume you're referring to dinner, not to adding water to a teabag...
Lol! I should have clarified that I was making Indian tea which we in our family make with our own twists that are sort of a tradition. It's no tea if it isn't made strictly like grandma taught!
[ For starters, its not a bag, it's tea powder, then it's not just water - it has certain amount of milk, then it's not just sugar but a few other herbs and spices suitable for the weather ]
Because trusting someone who doesn't have the child's best interest in mind would be kind of dangerous? Let's face it, no one's perfect. There are all kinds of parents out there, and some are downright psycho. I couldn't expect a child to be peaceful enough to trust his environment in a case like that. They may not be verbal and rational, but they react according to the environment.
And in my opinion, unhappy frames of mind are perfectly normal most of the time. They help people become aware of danger, especially when they're not old enough, smart enough etc. Whether they can escape or not is another issue. Personally, I'm against pathologizing what are essentially typical reactions, under certain circumstances. Overprescribed antidepressants come to mind.