Yesterday afternoon I went to a birthday party, where I played hide-and-seek with the hosts' four-year-old little girl, L. It reminded me of the work of my friend Greg, a cognitive scientist who has used hide-and-seek as a task in some of his case studies [PDF]. (Long-time readers of this blog know that I go meta at the slightest provocation, even in very ordinary situations.)
Why aren't young children very good at playing hide-and-seek? There are several reasons. For one, young children don't yet understand some basic spatial relationships. Have you ever seen children pour water betwen cups of different sizes in the bathtub? They're learning about relationships between shape and volume, and it's not always obvious to them that a tall thin container might hold less than a short fat one. Concealment means hiding behind or under or inside of something, concepts that are still a bit mysterious. More importantly, young children don't yet understand how to take someone else's perspective. In some situations, they'll automatically assume that what they see or know is the same as what others see or know.
Greg gives a nice example that will probably be familiar to most parents: In the first game of hide-and-seek, his "subject" (a three-year-old girl) found a hiding place by going into the next room and closing her eyes. (I hope the perspective-taking problem is obvious here.) My friend L. has gone beyond this stage but not very far: Before I finished counting to ten, facing a tree in the backyard, she shouted out, "I'm ready! Come find me!" while standing next to the nearest shrub. She continued to offer helpful advice ("I'm not there!") as I searched other nearby hiding places.
Like Greg, I decided to offer some strategic advice. "Hide somewhere I can't see you." This worked a bit better: She moved farther away, though still remaining in sight. Eventually L. chose a better hiding place, between two large bushes, where I couldn't see her when I finished counting by the tree. She still has some progress to make, though; it was only a matter of walking across the yard to find her. I suspect that L. hasn't yet figured out that you need a large, opaque object between two people for one to be concealed from the other. (Greg gives another funny example of his subject hiding underneath a glass coffee table.) I also suspect that L. may believe that a hiding place is good if she can't be seen from It's initial location, without considering that It will move later. I'm not worried--she'll figure it all out pretty quickly with experience.
So we had fun, the little girl playing hide-and-seek, the bigger guy playing hide-and-seek while thinking about cognitive development. And then we ate cake.


Salon.com
Comments
Thanks, Gabby. In my last line I meant to bring us back to the real world.
Hi, Bernadine. It's a blessing and a curse, as they say. :-)
small children can be terrific teachers
and interesting!
You simply think on more than one level at a time. Admirable. You can still have childlike fun while cognating.
I'm not saying...
I agree, Roy. There's lots to be learned from children.
Thanks for visiting, Julie and Paul. Stephanie, it's just one of those things...
Loved this post, loved the last lines.
But why she kept offering advice?
Because part of the fun is getting caught.
Thanks, C Berg. I have good memories, too, of playing hide-and-seek in the dark, even if we called it "Detectives". My wife says she played it with flashlights and she and her friends called it "Martians".
Thanks for the story, Dr.Spudman! It's so tempting to think of children as miniature adults, but they're completely different creatures.
Hi, FusunA. It was a rich layered chocolate cake, with raspberry inside. It was decorated with a tropical island motif, including brown sugar for sand. Entertaining and delicious. :-)
I didn't know about this misconception, but I know of others, some of which are associated with the idea of cognitive biases. With respect to physics, for example, even adults find it hard to apply Newton's laws. In one study I've read, college students were asked to draw the path of a baseball when it leaves a spiral-shaped chute: the students tended to draw a line that continued the spiral. In another study by the same authors (whose names I've forgotten, though I could look them up), a good number of students, when asked about the path of an object falling from an airplane, drew a straight diagonal line; some even drew a vertical line directly downward. It's amazing to me how we can get by in the world with intuitions that are so far off the mark.
I've sometimes thought about the possibility of building AI agents that would "live" in a physics simulation and try to induce physical laws. Would their findings be closer to Aristotle or Newton? This would make for an interesting Ph.D. dissertation, I think, but I've had no takers yet.
At MIT they used to have an annual pumpkin drop off the tallest building, 17 floors. It was odd to watch because I realized I almost never see anything in my life that actually accelerates (maybe a car, I mean, but mostly things are, to close approximation, not really changing velocity). I recall the way my mind perceived it was "It's falling. It's falling faster. It's falling faster still. It's done." About three steps. It was weird and over almost instantly. But most things just come at constant velocity. So who would ever guess there was acceleration due to gravity. Surely nature has no reason to ever evolve such knowledge. I'm sure an acceleration-free model suffices for survival. And so it goes...
You said: "I'm not worried--she'll figure it all out pretty quickly with experience."
Don't be so sure, as proof, I offer Kindergarten Kristians who never get past the dogma they were taught at five. As further proof, I offer Baggers, Beckers, Birthers and Birchers who will believe anything without proof -- if it's absurd enough.
Okay -- you're it!!
Kent, you make a few good points about the difficulties of AI research: we can't account for all the factors that could possibly influence thought and behavior; the cognitive mechanisms we fiddle with are only the barest approximations to their biological counterparts; artificial intelligence, such as it is, often arises from processes that aren't found in nature. (I'm painting with a broad brush here, because people working in evolutionary computing, artificial life, and other areas could easily argue with me.)
One approach we've taken in my lab is to try to identify a behavior or capacity that seems to be generally useful in people or animals, build a working computational model of it, and see how far it extends. Sometimes this has been successful, other times not. We'll keep trying...
Tom, thanks for dragging this piece back on track into the world of politics! :-)
Thanks for visiting, Lainey.