Amazing how he instantly loses track of where it is when it's out of sight. Watch him. He's so focused on it until the moment it's out of sight and then bam he instantly loses focus.
That's not what I got from this. He didnt lose focus after he lost sight of the toy, the first 2 time recognized where to look. But the subsequent attempts continued to look in the same spots that he knew the toy went before
That's actually an interesting part of babies psychology. I don't know the exact name, but there's a term for that Basically it's type of consciousness which a baby recognizes objets in their sight as existent, and out of it as non existent Imagine that: if you show your wallet to a baby, they will try to play around with it, BUT if you hide it for a couple of seconds, they will act like it doesn't exist anymore. Basically, what's out of their sight doesn't exist
Imagine doing this now but with a magician and it ends up being on the left. Then children watch the video of us failing the test and thinking we are idiots for not always choosing the left side.
Actually, throughout the 'test' he is also compulsively looking for the lion on the tabel which is actually also an A-not-B error, and then when he sees the wooden thing he suddenly remembers, which is actually very clever :) And also he is just supercute
Looking elsewhere for the toy is characteristic of a undeveloped understanding of object permanence. Infants younger than 3 months old would think that the object has vanished if their sight of the toy is blocked. With older infants, Piaget suggests that they may be able to have some ability and find the toy under A, but when the object is moved to B, the child is not able to perceive which side the toys are, even after seeing the experimenter put the toy directly under B. This video still seems to prove this point. However, alternative explanations can be offered, such as: 1) infants tend to repeated a previous motor behaviour, especially if they are rewarded with praise after each time they find the toy at A 2) infants may have poor memory It is still mind boggling though, because the infant sees the experiment put the toy in B, and some how forgets immediately? I prefer alternative explanation 1, but I feel like something else is going on. Reminds me of Sammy Jankis.
At 1:39, I also detect a sort of distrust in result of this experiment. In previous instances, he wasn't as resistant to giving up the lion, but once he went to the original hole, did not see the lion there, and saw it in a different hole, he was then more resistant to giving the lion to the researcher. Perhaps - and maybe I'm just speaking nonsense now - this experiment can also reveal a development of distrust to people who take things away from us and "fool us," thus making us cling harder to the thing we want? Maybe not, and definitely not what the experiment is testing, but certainly something to think about.
I think researchers need to think more about their research. For example the child looks away. The room should be empty so he doesn't have any distractions
It's less about trust and more about learnt behaviours. To not trust someone is an indication of past betrayals and kids don't get to that development stage until they start socialising on the playground. No, this is more of a "I know what is happening, I know what is going to happen" which equates to "I have the lion, I give you the lion, lion disappears in the hole, lion re-appears in the hole, I have the lion again." This is the routine; the learnt behaviour. When he looks into the hole and sees that the lion isn't there like he was expecting, he realises that he can't have the lion anymore. Then the lion appears in a different hole and he gets the lion back. But, at this point he understands that the routine can change and surrendering the lion again might mean that he doesn't get the lion back. That's why he's reluctant to give it to up.
bonsly21 The child fails to inhibit the knowledge that the lion is always (so far) in the box on his left. Also his working memory capacity is not great enough to keep in mind the short term information that the lion has this time been placed on the right side and so he relies on the initial association of left side = toy. It's not about distraction or object permanence. It's about poor inhibitory control and working memory which both develop significantly as we get older
The working memory explanation does not hold up. Stedron, Sahni and Munakata (2005) have done an interesting variation of this experiment without load on the working memory. The A not B error still occurs. Limited inhibitory control due to a lack in PFC development seems to be the better answer.
@@rinserofwinds any chance I could get links to this? When my sister was a newborn she was clearly able to recognize the voices of me, mom and dad, and actively stoped ctying to listen and search for only us. She recognized our voices from memory while still in the womb, but no one believes us, saying she could never have retained any such information.
+Danny Boy Greg I don't know anything about nothing but I think sound is different. Ever see those videos of old people with Alzheimer's who can't remember the nurse who gave them the remote two minutes ago but you play a recording of a song they knew when they were younger and they can sing it word for word. Also, the _object_ part of object permanence.
@@TheMike91393 I think I did watched the Alzheimer's vid a while back. I also remeber being told a person in more likely to remeber a persons voice over their face. it makes sense that sounds would have a different imprint on memory. My major concern was that I've been told in the past my sister could not have retained memory of voices, because "babies don't have object perminace" then they would cite this study as their sorce. But I think your right , I should probably look more into auditory studies.
@@dannyboygregory-mccormick9157 what do you do find out? I heard of a story where the father would talk to the baby in the womb. He had nicknamed it Spud. It reacted to its name when it was born
@bonsly21 This video considers Jeane Piaget's work. It is an experiment looking into the development of children. It was this task which allowed Piaget to conclude that even when there is mastery of object permanence the child’s knowledge of the world is limited. :) hope this helps
I think for the infant the 'left side finding success' event is by far more important than the observational aspect of where the object was hidden. Obviously for the infant his personal-active 'left side finding success' event is superior to the personal-passive observation event, to where the object was hidden.
9nine11eleven Interesting point, as it would make sense to weight successful events against events that have no success... I would want to compare how this kid did in other object permanence tests. Beacuse... the woman makes a toy disappear into both holes... But. .. You can always find a new one on the left! I studied Piaget 25 years ago and found it fascinating. Piaget himself was quite an intestine chap.
Nothing to do with distraction. The kid "the brain connections" clearly cannot distinguish which hole the lion when into…after seeing which hole it went into. The kid keeps going back to the original hole.
@bscutajar it's not a case of stupidity tbh. It's more a case of repetition and patterns. The human brain is wired to recognize and work with patterns. As children we can understand very simple patterns, and as we grow older (the majority) learn to understand more complex patterns. The child found the lion in the left hole twice... it makes sense to him to try and find it there again.
That's actually a good argument. I think some base urge/intuition is much less in terms of intellectual cost than robustly tracking the object's location and history.
i like to think this is the human equivalent of not having enough memory to process the situation. the kid remembered the remedy to the state "lion lost" as being "check hole", and subsequently, the brain made no more attempt to overwrite the old memory, or more properly, store this new memory at a seperate location, thus causing this error.
my dog is the same way when i put a treat in one hand and show him the hand before i close it. he will always choose the hand that he first saw the treat in even if i switch hands.
claro que para el es mas importante el "exito" que pudo tener ya que segun piaget decia que el error A no B es una comprension incompleta de la permanencia del objeto y tambien por una vision egocentrica del niño...
simple, asap. wdym when to start them? sure the kid doesn't understand the world well, though if you expose them to these puzzles and encourage them to learn what's really going on, then they'd surely learn and understand what's going on soon - which would also basically make them smarter. (I say basically because imo "smart"/iq/intelligence are such shit terms as they're basically meaningless. Some dead-end non-academic low life druggy hobo could very well be a genius, though people would say they're dumb because they're not academic (i.e, ability to remember stupid fucking trivia for literally years of their life)).
Why do you ask this? Like, do you mean to ask how the lion is put inside the box? Or that you want to know the actual dimensions of the box? If you want to replicate this, simply have two opaque boxes with lids and a toy. While the kid is looking, change the location of the toy.
@@undergroundindy The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head.
Are the distances of the two holes from the baby equal? I have the impression that the B-hole is father away, hence, the baby does not even attempt to reach for it.
That hurt your brain? Watch black-and-white shows where the people are all already dead. Also the laugh track you are hearing is from people who are already dead.
The second time she put it on the right side and I saw him looking at the right side as she put it in and when he has to choose he still chose the left side: “You had great potential, now you’re just a disappointment “
i think the baby thought the reward was given after he went to the hole on the left of him. thats why he kept choosing it. i dont know why this test would think any different. the kid obviously doesnt possess higher thought processes yet. he cant even speak. so what is the actual point of this test? bow i am confused 🧐 🤔
@ilmanti when we're young, all of us are stupid. i guess our definition of stupid varies. but i define it as lack of intelligence to some degree. when we're young all of us lack intelligence to some degree.
pretentious aresehole. you certainly would've been that stupid and ignorant at that age. I would also, and so would literally every other human on earth (though perhaps excluding savants).
I cannot believe the number of uneducated comments. When you don't know the reason for the study and know nothing about developmental psychology, you should go and watch a cartoon videos, which is more likely at your level of comprehension.
Amazing how he instantly loses track of where it is when it's out of sight. Watch him. He's so focused on it until the moment it's out of sight and then bam he instantly loses focus.
She's probably scared and trying to understand where she is at! No time for playing!... Cute baby though. Looks Asian/Filipina like me!
That's not what I got from this. He didnt lose focus after he lost sight of the toy, the first 2 time recognized where to look. But the subsequent attempts continued to look in the same spots that he knew the toy went before
@@unscripted483 I think it is a very important observation, though.
That's actually an interesting part of babies psychology.
I don't know the exact name, but there's a term for that
Basically it's type of consciousness which a baby recognizes objets in their sight as existent, and out of it as non existent
Imagine that: if you show your wallet to a baby, they will try to play around with it, BUT if you hide it for a couple of seconds, they will act like it doesn't exist anymore. Basically, what's out of their sight doesn't exist
As a consequence, it is like things disappear and appear in the world, just like magic, instead of being hide and being shown
Me after knowing the right side where the lion is: you FOOL!
Imagine doing this now but with a magician and it ends up being on the left. Then children watch the video of us failing the test and thinking we are idiots for not always choosing the left side.
its interesting to know that once we were all that stupid
hahahh I just wanted to comment "fuck that kid is stupid" haha
@@namenl2205 hey you stinker we all were
Hozic speak fo yo fat mom
@@namenl2205 She ain't fat doe she isn't American
8 year old comment and someone beat me to saying some still are by 45 minutes...
1:57 the face of absolute distress as he's been bamboozled twice in a row, priceless.
absolutely bamboozled
Hornswoggled
hoodwinked
Beguiled
Done dirty
This is 10 years old so the kids around 11 now.. would be funny to see him react to this
@Tharusha Fernando what are you even saying x)
this video could've been recorded in the 90s so we have no idea how old this person is today
@@Vapor817 Exact.
Sorry but the kid died
Now he can have a social media account
It is so cute that every time he hears a "thank you" he smiles
Actually, throughout the 'test' he is also compulsively looking for the lion on the tabel which is actually also an A-not-B error, and then when he sees the wooden thing he suddenly remembers, which is actually very clever :) And also he is just supercute
Looking elsewhere for the toy is characteristic of a undeveloped understanding of object permanence. Infants younger than 3 months old would think that the object has vanished if their sight of the toy is blocked. With older infants, Piaget suggests that they may be able to have some ability and find the toy under A, but when the object is moved to B, the child is not able to perceive which side the toys are, even after seeing the experimenter put the toy directly under B. This video still seems to prove this point.
However, alternative explanations can be offered, such as:
1) infants tend to repeated a previous motor behaviour, especially if they are rewarded with praise after each time they find the toy at A
2) infants may have poor memory
It is still mind boggling though, because the infant sees the experiment put the toy in B, and some how forgets immediately? I prefer alternative explanation 1, but I feel like something else is going on. Reminds me of Sammy Jankis.
He gets very happy when she says thank you
When he looks away you just know he forgot everything that just happened 🤣🤣
1:40 "c'mon! i don't want to give it to you again, you make it disapiar ¬¬"
At 1:39, I also detect a sort of distrust in result of this experiment. In previous instances, he wasn't as resistant to giving up the lion, but once he went to the original hole, did not see the lion there, and saw it in a different hole, he was then more resistant to giving the lion to the researcher. Perhaps - and maybe I'm just speaking nonsense now - this experiment can also reveal a development of distrust to people who take things away from us and "fool us," thus making us cling harder to the thing we want? Maybe not, and definitely not what the experiment is testing, but certainly something to think about.
excellent observation, meanwhile i'm just amazed that this kid didn't cry at all
I think researchers need to think more about their research. For example the child looks away. The room should be empty so he doesn't have any distractions
It's less about trust and more about learnt behaviours. To not trust someone is an indication of past betrayals and kids don't get to that development stage until they start socialising on the playground. No, this is more of a "I know what is happening, I know what is going to happen" which equates to "I have the lion, I give you the lion, lion disappears in the hole, lion re-appears in the hole, I have the lion again."
This is the routine; the learnt behaviour. When he looks into the hole and sees that the lion isn't there like he was expecting, he realises that he can't have the lion anymore. Then the lion appears in a different hole and he gets the lion back. But, at this point he understands that the routine can change and surrendering the lion again might mean that he doesn't get the lion back. That's why he's reluctant to give it to up.
@@thetobynator1373 Ah, excellent counterargument! I hadn't considered that, admittedly.
"and maybe I'm just speaking nonsense now"
Great analysis.
Thank you, this helped for my developmental psych class!
What is really being tested here is highly interpretive....Just saying maybe what we are witnessing is operant conditioning....?
He just LOVES the sound of the lion hitting the box and he wants to make that sound too! So adorable!
Me to the baby: NO NO NO DON'T GIVE THE LADY THE LION!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂
bonsly21 The child fails to inhibit the knowledge that the lion is always (so far) in the box on his left. Also his working memory capacity is not great enough to keep in mind the short term information that the lion has this time been placed on the right side and so he relies on the initial association of left side = toy. It's not about distraction or object permanence. It's about poor inhibitory control and working memory which both develop significantly as we get older
The working memory explanation does not hold up.
Stedron, Sahni and Munakata (2005) have done an interesting variation of this experiment without load on the working memory.
The A not B error still occurs.
Limited inhibitory control due to a lack in PFC development seems to be the better answer.
@@rinserofwinds any chance I could get links to this? When my sister was a newborn she was clearly able to recognize the voices of me, mom and dad, and actively stoped ctying to listen and search for only us. She recognized our voices from memory while still in the womb, but no one believes us, saying she could never have retained any such information.
+Danny Boy Greg I don't know anything about nothing but I think sound is different. Ever see those videos of old people with Alzheimer's who can't remember the nurse who gave them the remote two minutes ago but you play a recording of a song they knew when they were younger and they can sing it word for word. Also, the _object_ part of object permanence.
@@TheMike91393 I think I did watched the Alzheimer's vid a while back. I also remeber being told a person in more likely to remeber a persons voice over their face. it makes sense that sounds would have a different imprint on memory. My major concern was that I've been told in the past my sister could not have retained memory of voices, because "babies don't have object perminace" then they would cite this study as their sorce. But I think your right , I should probably look more into auditory studies.
@@dannyboygregory-mccormick9157 what do you do find out? I heard of a story where the father would talk to the baby in the womb. He had nicknamed it Spud. It reacted to its name when it was born
The baby is so so cute 😭 I just wanna squish those cheeks 😭😭
he has the notion of "object permanence" but he do "A not B error"at the same time :D
You can see the trust lost in his eyes 😂
@bonsly21 This video considers Jeane Piaget's work. It is an experiment looking into the development of children. It was this task which allowed Piaget to conclude that even when there is mastery of object permanence the child’s knowledge of the world is limited. :) hope this helps
I think for the infant the 'left side finding success' event
is by far more important than the observational
aspect of where the object was hidden. Obviously
for the infant his personal-active 'left side finding success'
event is superior to the personal-passive
observation event, to where the object was hidden.
9nine11eleven Interesting point, as it would make sense to weight successful events against events that have no success... I would want to compare how this kid did in other object permanence tests.
Beacuse... the woman makes a toy disappear into both holes... But. .. You can always find a new one on the left!
I studied Piaget 25 years ago and found it fascinating. Piaget himself was quite an intestine chap.
Aww the kid is sooo cute! 😊
Yes
Well this is also operant conditioning since he was rewarded with the lion the first few times
You are absolutly correct Miikaika, This is operant conditioning.
I am here to understand logic and pattern recognition in youth as per my psychology course. Fascinating stuff.
This is actually interesting. I didn’t know young kids worked like that
I think the point is that they don't. XD
@@Lyonatan can you read? The title states that this is a typical 10 month old
@SirTylerGolf what I meant is they don't "work", as in they do not function, they are dumb as a rock
Nothing to do with distraction.
The kid "the brain connections" clearly cannot distinguish
which hole the lion when into…after seeing which hole it went into.
The kid keeps going back to the original hole.
kid got absolutely prankd
cute baby:)
*My attention span during office meetings be like:*
@bscutajar it's not a case of stupidity tbh. It's more a case of repetition and patterns. The human brain is wired to recognize and work with patterns. As children we can understand very simple patterns, and as we grow older (the majority) learn to understand more complex patterns. The child found the lion in the left hole twice... it makes sense to him to try and find it there again.
That's actually a good argument. I think some base urge/intuition is much less in terms of intellectual cost than robustly tracking the object's location and history.
Thanks for the video
Idk why but the little sounds he starts to make at 0:30 are adorable asf
thank you!
WHERE DOES THE LION GO?!?! OBJECT PERMANENCE MY ARSE!
Wow, that's really interesting! I want to do this with my 10 month old. lol
Is it too late to try?
wow very cool
I feel so proud, because I know EACH time where the figurine was. I could easily beat that baby at this game.
Her voice 😂
i like to think this is the human equivalent of not having enough memory to process the situation.
the kid remembered the remedy to the state "lion lost" as being "check hole", and subsequently, the brain made no more attempt to overwrite the old memory, or more properly, store this new memory at a seperate location, thus causing this error.
This is why we go to school when we are 5-6
my dog is the same way when i put a treat in one hand and show him the hand before i close it. he will always choose the hand that he first saw the treat in even if i switch hands.
me when someone takes my stim toys
This reminds me of an article by the onion on how babies are stupid.
Dude I was just watching that
Your mother is stupid.
1:54 “where in the hell did my lion go?”
The other video was teaching her son to think outside the box with the blue water.
Funny how we're all here because we're in college learning about lifespan development...
claro que para el es mas importante el "exito" que pudo tener ya que segun piaget decia que el error A no B es una comprension incompleta de la permanencia del objeto y tambien por una vision egocentrica del niño...
Baby: Happily hits table while waiting to get the elephant.
Me: Throw the elephant to the experimenter for trying to take It away from me.
Cave Johnson here.
lemons.
Now put him in a different position and watch him have to learn the holes all over again.
Thk you
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
Thats why memory games are important. But the question is when do you start with them
Well this baby is 10 months.
simple, asap. wdym when to start them? sure the kid doesn't understand the world well, though if you expose them to these puzzles and encourage them to learn what's really going on, then they'd surely learn and understand what's going on soon - which would also basically make them smarter. (I say basically because imo "smart"/iq/intelligence are such shit terms as they're basically meaningless. Some dead-end non-academic low life druggy hobo could very well be a genius, though people would say they're dumb because they're not academic (i.e, ability to remember stupid fucking trivia for literally years of their life)).
@Miikaika25 How?
Tendrá que ver el sitio donde esta sentado el bebe? Que pasaría si sentaran al bebe al centro de la mesa?
This was unfair. He had too low ELO to be put here by MM
If I got the math right, the kid would now be 12 and it possible they watched this video by now
Can anybody tell me the dimensions of the box she is using for the task?
Thanks!
Baby size
Why do you ask this? Like, do you mean to ask how the lion is put inside the box? Or that you want to know the actual dimensions of the box?
If you want to replicate this, simply have two opaque boxes with lids and a toy. While the kid is looking, change the location of the toy.
This kid doesn't watch Rick and Morty
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty.
@@undergroundindy The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head.
Are the distances of the two holes from the baby equal? I have the impression that the B-hole is father away, hence, the baby does not even attempt to reach for it.
This kid is almost 11 now... this hurts my brain help
That hurt your brain? Watch black-and-white shows where the people are all already dead. Also the laugh track you are hearing is from people who are already dead.
@@brendalg4 true true :,) depressing
Object Permanence
can somebody explain me what this video is about? pls?
no...lol
Lmao
He doesn’t know where the fuck the lion is even if he watch where the adult human puts it
@@10418 This comment is from 7 years ago...
Why is this kid only 10 months old and he already has hair like Tony Randall?
I was born with that much hair.
like si venis por el campus de psico
OMG THIS IS SAD
Why is this sad? Only an ignorant would make such comment. Study some psychology. I bet you don't even know who Piaget was.
@@MissMariQueen what did i ever do to you? 🙂
The second time she put it on the right side and I saw him looking at the right side as she put it in and when he has to choose he still chose the left side: “You had great potential, now you’re just a disappointment “
I put 20 bucks on you kid! 🤦♂️
Is this guy joking. Smh
i think the baby thought the reward was given after he went to the hole on the left of him. thats why he kept choosing it. i dont know why this test would think any different. the kid obviously doesnt possess higher thought processes yet. he cant even speak. so what is the actual point of this test? bow i am confused 🧐 🤔
To find out the age when this process develops
@ilmanti when we're young, all of us are stupid. i guess our definition of stupid varies. but i define it as lack of intelligence to some degree. when we're young all of us lack intelligence to some degree.
I think you lack intelligence now. This is a baby.
@@MelB868 I was replying to someone else's comment you dumb fuck
Shu
Oh my god these comments in baby videos are so mean hahaha
Obvisouly Thats not me when I was 10 months
pretentious aresehole. you certainly would've been that stupid and ignorant at that age. I would also, and so would literally every other human on earth (though perhaps excluding savants).
I cannot believe the number of uneducated comments. When you don't know the reason for the study and know nothing about developmental psychology, you should go and watch a cartoon videos, which is more likely at your level of comprehension.
I’m a psych major and I still think it’s funny to observe a stupid baby from time to time
im 19 and im smarter than this kid
yeah cuz your 19 and this kid is a newborn
@@Obedthian-UK wow dude you're so cool and smart and epic and the savior of this baby and totally didn't miss the joke.
@@IOwnKazakhstan thank you thank you