The two-frame test
The two-frame test
42 comments
-
-
A lot of people here seem stuck on the details of the metaphor instead of focusing on how some adults refuse to ever consider they are wrong or at fault, and that's a real problem in the world. You probably know someone who never admits fault for anything. If they're late, it's because of traffic. If they lose in mario kart, it's because the controller is bad. If they get lost, it's because the GPS is hard to understand. Never their fault.
-
I think it's a way bigger problem how some adults refuse to ever consider that the system is at fault and think every single problem in the world must be reduced down to an individual failing instead of a badly designed system that makes it easy for individuals to fail for stupid reasons
-
I don't think "every single problem ... must be reduced down to an individual failing" is super common, but sure, some people refuse to recognize systemic problems. There are loads of people who say racism isn't a problem, for example, and that's bad. Kind of off topic from childhood development and people who refuse to admit fault when it is plausibly their fault. (And saying you're late because there was traffic because the city refuses to build effective mass transit may be technically true in a sense, but it's also kind of useless, maybe even counter productive, in the moment where everyone else is waiting for you. Leave earlier. Use the agency you have.)
-
Well yes but the system gave be table scraps from a meal i made once, so it being bad would mean im bad and my treats are bad!
-
-
-
Insufficient data!
Was the bench around a corner or jutting out? Was the boy part of a crowd that obscured the bench? Is the bench somehow camouflaged? Is it static and stationary?
Is the boy fully sighted? Is it dark? Did someone distract him? Was he panicked by someone? Could he have deliberately run into it?
-
Is there an adult that should be monitoring the boy? Is the bench reasonably out of the way and visible? Was any attempt made at childproofing?
I am generally inclined to blame a relevant adult when applicable
-
That's what I came to say. In no case is it the fault of the bench but in some it is the fault of the individual who chose the installation location. At my old apartment there was a fixed display that only slightly jutted into the doorway in the front admin room. People would bump it constantly until it finally fell over. But like the other comment mentioned, this is a little too in the weeds for the point of the meme.
-
-
If you find ths intresting, research "Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development" most people only achieve conventional moral development but many remain at pre-conventional until 40+ years old.
One of the topics for child development (Which covers conception to death) I learned.
-
Mh. I think stage 5 and 6 are purely individual. In the end, morals depend heavily on cultural context. And morals serving morality only are hypocritical. Nothing good about someone killing themselves because they couldn't save someone. And even this example depends on how close they were. Yet asians, who are culturally closer knit to their group and with more focus on family honor, often see that different.
-
Very good points, yes. Stage 5 and 6 are individual and rarely develop, and none of it is a one size fits all, as vygotsky's sociacultrual theory proposes, a persons cognitive development and how they put meaning to things, concepts and actions form from thier environment, society and culture. What we see as good or bad is dependent on our respective cultures, and can be easily hypocritical. Psychologically is a very intresting field because we dont have a definite answer on most things, the mind is textbook subjectivity.
We are taught the 6 stages of moral development not as a fact but to provoke thought on moral development in context of concrete operational thought (Which itself has shown to be subjective) and how our modern psychological understandings stem from. however the first two stages give a fair idea of pre-concrete-operational moral reasoning, so we can better
negotiatereason with children.
-
-
-
This is worded ambiguously. I suppose they mean that certain adults have not managed to develop beyond the level of a three year old. However, the way it is worded, I think the more sensible interpretation is that for certain adults, an obstacle truly does get in their way. Suggesting that they are powerful or have a lot of momentum. Which could be a compliment. At any rate, not an amazing revelation but I thought I'd give my two cents
-
I actually sprained my ankle trying to read this thanks x
-
Be gentle with yourself, you are enough.
Unless you’re one of those bench-blaming adults; you deserve to suffer.
-
But BBB tripped me on purpose!
-
-
Adulthood doubles the frames: add one with no bench, and one with someone putting a bench in front of the child. The conclusion doesn't change: it's the kid's fault for tripping over the bench. We just collectively ignore that the kid was fine until someone put a bench in the way.
-
And the person has waay too many benches to last ten lifetimes. And yet, instead of using the benches to help people needing benches to sleep on, they choose to use it to trip kids.
-
Now we need another frame with you putting that person in the frame!
-
-
There's a calvin and hobbes comic where calvin trips on a rock and yells out "who put this rock here?" or something along those lines. Spent like 15 minutes looking for it but couldn't find it
-
the bench didn't show up on the first frame so, duh, popping~
stuttering~
the game engine sucks.
-
The artist is to blame for creating a boy who could only ever trip over a bench
-
What else should he trip over?
-
-
When did Lemmy ever get so political
/s for those who need it
-
Wait, some are born with what would lead to Narcisstic personality disorder?
-
Ugh, no.One can't argue that personality disorders are inherently genetic. You can argue there's a significant genetic component, but to think that someone is just going to be a narcissist despite how you would rear them is... well, bioessentialism.
Edit oh wait sorry. You asked you didn't argue. Everyone is born like that, yeah, like everyone is born without object permanence. Then you develop it very early on. Just like you develop a sense of self-criticism as your cognition grows. Some just never do.
-
I would have guessed this is more of a nurture situation, rather than nature
-
-
what about the person who put the bench there? if it was unintentional, the boy is to blame. but if it's intentional... well
42 comments
I mean at the same time we also have very strict building codes and are told to not place stuff where it creates tripping hazards.
In a flight of stairs, if even one step is off 1/8 of an inch or 3mm, it can cause someone to trip. The steps would be very valid to blame, so circumstances matter too.
Not the person who built the step?
Nope. That step deliberately shifted slighty with malice aforethought.
I finally fell down my stairs a few months back. They’re carpeted and each step is a different length and height. Nightmare stairs.
Carpeted as in, the carpet will slide relative to the stair, so it won't matter how good and new your sports shoes are?
Well, the onus is on you to prove that bench is not up to code. :)
This situation would be more where it was placed if it wasn’t mounted. Probably not a good place if it’s right outside an exit for example.
I like running up stairs. Specially when there are a lot of them.
When I enter a new building, I go slowly, getting a feel of each rise. If it turns out to be not runnable, I then walk the same way all the time. Otherwise, I get to have fun, starting the next time.
That 1 off-step would make me hate whomever worked on that stair. That would increase by the amount of time I would have planned on staying at that place.