Kids are dumb part 2. part 1: /Kids+are+dumb/funny-gifs/5110954/.. People, it's psychology 101. Children ages 3-7 are not developed enough to grasp the concept of conservation or reversibility. If any of you had done this exper
x
Click to expand

Comments(210):

[ 210 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #29 - houseofscarlet (04/24/2014) [-]
People, it's psychology 101.

Children ages 3-7 are not developed enough to grasp the concept of conservation or reversibility. If any of you had done this experiment at their age, at least 95% of you all would have said the same thing this little girl just did. She's not stupid, she's learning. Don't even try to pretend that you weren't as naive as she was at one point in your life.

For more information, look up "Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development"
User avatar #57 to #29 - pizzaweed (04/24/2014) [-]
Thank you. I for the life of me, couldn't remember the terms for this, but I knew the kid hadn't reached that stage of development yet.




How I'm passing psychology with my ability to remember terms I'll never know
#99 to #57 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
Here you go. ankisrs.net/
#116 to #29 - ballerfifteen (04/24/2014) [-]
thank you so much i was trying to remember the theory of Piaget for this concept
thank you so much i was trying to remember the theory of Piaget for this concept
#127 to #29 - fisttourface (04/24/2014) [-]
I think that's kind of the point of these videos. To show how little children know at those ages not say that these specific kids are useless and will never know any better.
I think that's kind of the point of these videos. To show how little children know at those ages not say that these specific kids are useless and will never know any better.
#133 to #127 - houseofscarlet (04/24/2014) [-]
I know. I'm not criticizing the content. The commentators are what's bugging me. All these pathetic morons claiming they were never as dumb as that and calling this little girl retarded. Just trying to educate.
I know. I'm not criticizing the content. The commentators are what's bugging me. All these pathetic morons claiming they were never as dumb as that and calling this little girl retarded. Just trying to educate.
#136 to #133 - fisttourface (04/24/2014) [-]
Oh I got you. I hadn't read too many other comments.
Oh I got you. I hadn't read too many other comments.
#137 to #136 - houseofscarlet (04/24/2014) [-]
You too have the gifs...
You too have the gifs...
User avatar #139 to #137 - fisttourface (04/24/2014) [-]
just the one sorry
#140 to #139 - houseofscarlet (04/24/2014) [-]
Then have another! Sharing is caring! And I think this one's pretty useful
Then have another! Sharing is caring! And I think this one's pretty useful
0
#135 to #133 - fisttourface has deleted their comment [-]
#154 to #29 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
concept of conservation of matter*
User avatar #198 to #29 - kimilsung ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Hence "kids are stupid" , not only that one.
#56 - ogloko (04/24/2014) [-]
forgot the exact name for this but i remember it from a psych class. at her stage in psychological development most children would answer the same way.

in short, op is the dumb one
User avatar #60 to #56 - CyborgNinja (04/24/2014) [-]
Its that they don't understand object permanence. But yeah, OP is a dumbass.
#64 to #60 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
Thats not "object permanence" it's a demonstration on "conservation"

Object permanence is the ability to comprehend that objects continue to exist even though you can no longer see them.
#81 to #64 - ogloko (04/24/2014) [-]
THANK YOU SIR, i was going nuts trying to remember that
User avatar #65 to #64 - CyborgNinja (04/24/2014) [-]
Good catch, random person!

Sorry, but been doing excel homework for about three hours, and my brain is basically paste.
User avatar #73 to #56 - jeanmariegrangon (04/24/2014) [-]
It's an experiment to demonstrate the stage of cognitive development according to Piaget.
#80 to #56 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
its because at this age they are in the preoperational stage in which they make many errors in thinking such as errors in conservation which is shown in the gif. (Piaget's stages of cognitive development)
#38 - vissova (04/24/2014) [-]
>dumb
>unable to understand something because brain is too young
>expecting a child to understand something like this
#161 to #38 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
"unable to understand something"
Is what we call dumb. Surely their brains will develope, but there is no way around it. They are just not that clever at this age.
User avatar #204 to #38 - TexMex (04/24/2014) [-]
Well, that makes kids dumb. They grow up to be smarter most of the time, but when they're kids they're dumb.
User avatar #72 to #38 - funnaycraptwo (04/24/2014) [-]
I love how Comment #3 says the same thing, but we thumbed that guy down anyway.
#62 to #38 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
Quiet you. I have to ridiculize more children by asking them algerba **** and call them stupid for not saying the right answer
#176 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
You learn this in basic psychology courses, there's an age where kids can't process conservation, they're just not developed enough yet. You were at that age too, except you held on to your stupid long enough to get access to a computer.
#199 to #176 - grafitblacke (04/24/2014) [-]
Dude be speaking truth.  and smack
Dude be speaking truth. and smack
#187 to #176 - melolicious (04/24/2014) [-]
*roll thumb* i love you anon
#201 to #187 - sirbrentcoe (04/24/2014) [-]
**sirbrentcoe rolled image** that's.... actually pretty funny
User avatar #150 to #89 - shinigamizak (04/24/2014) [-]
Get your **** together Jimmy
User avatar #40 - thecomkiller (04/24/2014) [-]
you didn't have the ability to know when you were that age either
#30 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
Moral of the story: Children are inferior creatures.
User avatar #128 - therealslimdavey (04/24/2014) [-]
These kids aren't dumb. They're like 5 or 6 at the most.

They're brains are still growing. They lack the full development of their frontal and parietal lobes. The kid in this experiment is saying the tall glass holds more juice, because the only concrete evidence she can summon at her age is that the tall glass appears larger, and therefore holds more liquid.

Saying they're dumb is like saying "Sharks sure are stupid for not being able to breathe on land."
#153 to #128 - catburglarpenis (04/24/2014) [-]
I was gonna be you, but then you were you, so I thank you for being you and typing this so I didn't have to.   
   
ily
I was gonna be you, but then you were you, so I thank you for being you and typing this so I didn't have to.

ily
#157 to #153 - Mecuniv (04/24/2014) [-]
That is adorable! I love pugs so much!
User avatar #171 to #128 - ninjaroo ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
To be dumb is to lack intelligence and common sense.
Children lack intelligence and common sense, so they're dumb.
It's not really an insult because they are still learning and it's what you'd expect for that point, but it's true.
User avatar #175 to #171 - zombiestookmybike (04/24/2014) [-]
it's not a matter of lacking intelligence. even the most intelligent and perceptive 4 year old would not understand the laws of conservation, because there's only so fast a brain can grow. if the neurons in her brain have not made the appropriate connections (which in this case normally doesn't happen until the age of about 7), no amount of intelligence will change this fact.
User avatar #181 to #175 - ninjaroo ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
Even the most intelligent and perceptive 4 year old
Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge independently of others. You don't expect a four year old to be able to do that, because they're developing. That means they aren't intelligent.
You could accurately call a baby stupid or weak. It's true, but who gives a **** . They're a baby.
User avatar #183 to #181 - zombiestookmybike (04/24/2014) [-]
it's ridiculous to be comparing the intelligence of a 4 year old to that of humanity in general. you measure intelligence based on how they compare to others in the same context. adults compare their intelligence to other adults, not dolphins or infants
User avatar #184 to #183 - ninjaroo ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
It's ridiculous to do so, that doesn't make it inaccurate.
User avatar #180 to #171 - zombiestookmybike (04/24/2014) [-]
are you thumbing me down because i proved you wrong
User avatar #182 to #180 - ninjaroo ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
No, because you thumbed me down.
+1
#130 to #128 - testaburger has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #131 to #130 - therealslimdavey (04/24/2014) [-]
Okay? What would you have said?
-4
#132 to #131 - testaburger has deleted their comment [-]
#168 - kaboomz (04/24/2014) [-]
shes not dumb   
shes a kid   
shes still learning   
everything looks magical when you are a kid
shes not dumb
shes a kid
shes still learning
everything looks magical when you are a kid
#102 - fjdragon (04/24/2014) [-]
This is basic psychology, children don't develop these reasoning skills until they are older usually around 4-5.
User avatar #115 to #102 - lateday (04/24/2014) [-]
This is not "basic" psychology. It is psychology, but in general courses this is never taught. I was taught this after about a year in my major, but maybe my university just sucks.
#123 to #115 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
i Denmark you learn about this in what compares to high school in the US
User avatar #129 to #123 - lateday (04/24/2014) [-]
Well, my high school psychology class was a bit more thorough than most classes in my university... I can see that happening.
User avatar #108 to #102 - afaik (04/24/2014) [-]
I like the one where they don't realize they are not the only being capable of thought. I think that one comes at 3 or 4 years.

But yes, technically, kids are going through the human evolution during their first few years, and that's badass.
#84 - lazaman (04/24/2014) [-]
These kids don't understand how matter works guys.
Stop calling them dumb.
This little kid was you at one point.
Don't ******** me, every kid at some point would have fallen for this.
And if you claim that you wouldn't have, then you are a lying sack of **** .
User avatar #106 to #84 - chocolatepuppy (04/24/2014) [-]
those things are part of a study that was made in order to try to determine at what age kids start to assimilate different concepts, such as (in this case) the principle of conservation of mass
User avatar #100 to #84 - timmywankenobi ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
except falling for this when your 3 is normal but that girl looks to be about 5 or 6 .If you can't grasp simple concepts at 5 or 6 you are sub par .
User avatar #86 to #84 - assrocket (04/24/2014) [-]
Or maybe you were just a dumb kid?
#87 to #86 - lazaman (04/24/2014) [-]
Or maybe you don't realize how your perception on this kind of 			****		 developes in children.   
   
If you never fell for this 			****		, then that just means that you were never subjected to this test.   
You know nothing of a child's perceptual development. Take your mediocrity and leave.
Or maybe you don't realize how your perception on this kind of **** developes in children.

If you never fell for this **** , then that just means that you were never subjected to this test.
You know nothing of a child's perceptual development. Take your mediocrity and leave.
User avatar #88 to #87 - assrocket (04/24/2014) [-]
Or maybe it was just a joke, not a dick. Don't take it so hard.
#110 to #88 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
If that was a joke, you have a really bad sense of humor.
User avatar #114 to #110 - assrocket (04/24/2014) [-]
Do you like whips and chains too?
I wasn't even insulting him - I was ******* kidding.
Calm your tits.
User avatar #95 to #84 - givememoarpony (04/24/2014) [-]
You still have to accept that this is an inaccurate and incorrect thought process. I don't care if 'that kid was me'. Yes, I was dumb as a kid, so what? Why shouldn't I call them dumb? Are you implying that I can never be dumb? I'll take that as a compliment.
User avatar #97 to #95 - lazaman (04/24/2014) [-]
They are not dumb, they are uneducated.
This girl is only 6 or 7. No one has taught her about volume and mass yet.
User avatar #98 to #97 - givememoarpony (04/24/2014) [-]
You don't have to be taught physics to understand that the same amounts of juice have the same amount. She was told and shown that, and then contradicted herself. No amount of juice was added, so there is no reason to expect the juice to increase. Only if she didn't initially say that the two glasses had the same amount of juice, could you just call them uneducated.
User avatar #121 to #98 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/24/2014) [-]
So at no point in your life would you have thought was this kid did?
User avatar #174 to #121 - ninjaroo ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
"Yes, I was dumb as a kid, so what?"
-Givememoarpony

Yeah, he says he thought like that. He acknowledges that it was dumb.
#125 to #98 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
But your brain have to have developed beyond a certain point you ignorant ****
#126 to #125 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
True, its all proven, so saying something else is just denying science.
#2 - finni (04/23/2014) [-]
MFW these kids
MFW these kids
#107 - drunkengnome (04/24/2014) [-]
We tried that in kindergarden as well..   
I think all of us answered the same as she did..
We tried that in kindergarden as well..
I think all of us answered the same as she did..
0
#148 to #107 - testaburger has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #112 to #107 - goreglash (04/24/2014) [-]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that gif is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time!!!
#111 to #107 - spacereptar (04/24/2014) [-]
I did the same thing in my kindergarten class. One of the parents said I should know better since I'm the teacher but whatever, **** that bitch.
User avatar #120 to #111 - drunkengnome (04/24/2014) [-]
Sadly I can only give you 1 thumb..
#203 - zedsdead (04/24/2014) [-]
For anyone who was curious, this was an experiment testing conservation (one of Jean Piaget's stages in his theory of cognitive development). Almost all children cannot understand the concept of either volume, mass, weight, length or quantity under the age of 5. This same stage (the Pre-Operational stage) shows that children also 'suffer' from Ego-centrism, which inhibits them from being able to view a situation from someone else's perspective, which is why children always seem so 'selfish'.
#207 to #203 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
personality disorder.... twists the table least to say
>Understood, volume, mass, weight, length and quantity at young age (depending on how you say, mass and weight are interchangeable unless you are doing any kind of calculations with them, which I was not.)
>Mastered to drive quad bikes at the age of 20 months
>Ego-centric perspective yet no ego-centric behaviour
>Philosopher
>Age 8, rediscovered many of newtons laws by myself during arguments with friend (very popular due to being the only kid who was not self centred)
I think this might be in my genes considering that my father was tri-lingual at the age of 3. English, Swedish and French. All with different grammatical rules.
User avatar #211 to #207 - grasman (04/28/2014) [-]
I call ******** .
Rediscovering newtons laws with 8 .... well, I doubt it to say the least.
But three languages with age 3? I say that's not possible, not even two.
#208 to #207 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
Also I was bi-lingual at the age of 3 with French & Swedish.
#66 - xgolgothax (04/24/2014) [-]
For everyone saying this is a demonstration on object permanence, it is not. This is conservation. Link supplied.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_(psychology)
User avatar #113 to #66 - lateday (04/24/2014) [-]
Object permanence is obtained way earlier. At about 15 months of age if I'm not mistaken.
#9 - Rascal (04/23/2014) [-]
LOL what a n00b! Only a lvl 4! Lrn2Juice faggot.

But seriously, its not that shes dumb, shes only a kid and doesn't know the things we do. Not really fair to expect that from her.
User avatar #12 to #9 - snakephallus (04/23/2014) [-]
It's a part of her psychological growth. At a young age children have trouble with Conservation in which they cannot logically determine that a certain quantity will remain the same despite being moved to a different container. This .gif is from a video showing children and their inability to use conservation.

The theory was actually created by Jean Piaget who theorized that children below the Concrete operational stage (Ages 7-11) would not yet have developed this ability.
User avatar #194 - thirdjess (04/24/2014) [-]
Love her expression when the woman poured the juice into the slimmer glass, was like 'woah bitch making more juice magically appear what the hell is this *****
#138 - Rascal (04/24/2014) [-]
someone does not know Piaget
User avatar #41 - ggggotmethisname (04/24/2014) [-]
not dumb. they're too young. their minds are not psychologically developed enough to know the difference until they are older.
#37 - gisuar ONLINE (04/24/2014) [-]
i'm not sure if someone already mentioned this but your title isn't fitting they aren't dumb they just lack the ability to understand this

i'm not sure if someone already mentioned this but your title isn't fitting they aren't dumb they just lack the ability to understand this

i'm not sure if someone already mentioned this but your title isn't fitting they aren't dumb they just lack the ability to understand this
[ 210 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)