Because the "truthful" method doesn't get the desired results.
I'm a father (and I also remember something about being a kid) and I can tell you that 4 year old kids are unbelievably egocentric. A lot of the rules adults try to impose that are perfectly reasonable to anyone with enough empathy seem completely arbitrary to a 4 year old. So, "don't yell because that distracts/bothers me" is an "arbitrary" rule coming from a "cranky" dad. "I put a script in the machine that will shut down the screen if you yell too loud" gets translated into "I don't want you to yell", which is, again, an "arbitrary" rule kids don't care about.
On the other hand, "computer doesn't like loud sounds" is a perfectly "reasonable" rule, because the computer is "in charge" of letting you play the game. You disturb the computer, the computer reacts. And you can't argue with it or try to manipulate it. Crying at it or throwing a temper tantrum won't do any good. It has no mouth, so you can't have a conversation with it. In short, you have to follow its rules.
If you want to avoid having the kids jump to the "logical" conclusion that the machine is a person, you can formulate it differently: instead of saying "the computer doesn't like loud sounds", you can say "the computer is a machine that doesn't work well when there's a lot of yelling".
Then again, someone else already pointed out that kids believe that an old, fat man can come down their chimney and leave gifts in a matter of minutes -- and do so for every kid in the freaking world -- without suffering any psychological scars from an "untruthful" method of influencing their behavior (because Santa brings gifts only to kids who are "good"), so I don't see what the big deal is with going through a short period of believing the machine is a person.
Actually, if you just say "it doesn't work well when there's a lot of yelling", that's basically a true statement, even if the only reason is the script you added. ;) But it doesn't work to just say "I put this script there because I, not the computer, am in charge of letting you play the game"?
Depends on what you mean by "works". If you want it to have any effect whatsoever, you have to follow through and actually turn off the game. And you'll have to do so until the lesson sinks in. And you'll have to deal with the kids that are crying and idle in the mean time. And they'll probably resent you for that rule because they aren't able to identify with it.
None of the above is a bad thing or an insurmountable obstacle, but there's nothing seriously wrong with making the computer take the blame either. In my opinion, it ends up teaching the kids to be considerate to others (even if it's just a computer), with less suffering all around. YMMV, etc.
When I discover anyone has deceived me successfully, my shields are up around them, forever, because a deceiver is always a deceiver, I always have to spend more cpu cycles to wonder: "Are they deceiving me now"? This could be an elaborate lesson for the kid to teach them about deception. But it looks to me like this is a dysfunctional family in the making. When you break the bond of trust, it takes YEARS to get it back, and for me, it's like 5 years. Father is playing with fire here, and I'd kick that guy in the shins and post an image to reddit for all to laugh, why? Because it's FUNNY!
I think you are 1) applying a different age's mental model onto a much younger one and 2) describing a much stronger deception than what actually exists here.
People anthropomorphism objects all the time. Kids do it even more than adults. This action isn't going to cause psychological damage and, if it does, it is only because it existed already from something much more serious.
> So, if a deceiver is always a deceiver, what do you do if they tell you they are a deceiver? beep boop does not compute
Stupid word games. The word "deceiver," as used by the parent commentator, is quite reasonably used to mean "one who is noticeably more likely than baseline to choose to deceive" - your example gives no trouble: you accept it at face value. Disagree for reasons, if you disagree.
Most families have no control over their kids, they are spoiled rotten, and they don't know why, they will grow up leeches on the system, open your eyes they are all around us. Beep boop does not compute.
My parents didn't tell me Santa was real, unlike most families, they have NEVER once lied to me. As such I am a highly productive citizen about to retire to entrepreneurship early 30's.
I find your response stemming from a false assumption as evidence that you are spending too much of your neural network trying to deal with the deceivers in your life. Instead of having success, coming to right conclusions about things, you instead come to false conclusions, evidence of failure, can't get things right the first time. I find it disturbing and yet an addition to my understanding of how present-emotional people work. Without automations for the lower classes our society would not run as is.
When you get back into work Monday morning, you did your thing wrong, you'll have to correct that as well.
"I find your response stemming from a false assumption as evidence that you are spending too much of your neural network trying to deal with the deceivers in your life."
Really, you got all that because I assumed your parents lied to you about Santa Claus, just like the majority of parents in the US?
Honestly, I'd love for you to continue ranting. I'm all ears, it's a lot of fun to read. I promise I'll read it.
Church is full of deceivers as well. Lying about God, Lying about Jesus. Trying to get your money. We have to teach the kids about deceiving for personal gain. But you treat kids like a member of society as early as they can take it. Overpowering them psychologically is the wrong answer, and is part of the reason why most families are broken. My mom/dad is one of the most tight relationships I have ever seen, and I've seen many relationships. They are built on trust, and what this person is doing is exchanging a little bit of trust for some temporary pain relief, a bad exchange that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The lesson for deception should occur simultaneously on the lesson that your actions have consequences, and if you piss off your friends, they will retaliate. It's complex and I have a hard time describing it, but it's the glue that makes families happy and productive. It doesn't feel right to me at all.
It's teaching the kids to be passive aggressive. Can't get what you want? Work behind the scenes to cause the people you love to do what you want. Do it to the kid, the kid does it back to you. It's not something to trifle with. You're configuring the personality of the kid with these interactions, and these choices have huge consequences about how the kid interacts with society, family and friends. There are only a couple people in the world I would trust with my life, whom I could give them power of attorney over me and I could rely on them not to loot me and leave me powerless. And that relationship is built on one of trust, one of never deceiving. The father is deceiving the kid, that trust-relationship I have may not materialize with the person who plays these mind games.
The relationship I describe is the most valuable thing on Earth, people KILL for it, literally, and I'm trying to comment here about how to get that thing, and I see these articles are pooping all over it, and I have to give my 2 cents. These ideas I have aren't silly, it's the operating principles of the most valuable thing in the world: Love and trust. The only thing worth more than money.
0. Your whole viewpoint stems from thinking that any deception, regardless of how well intentioned or small, is actively and hugely harmful. I don't share that view. Small and well intentioned deceptions can be handled well by most people which do not then learn that you can't trust or love or know that actions have consequences or that serious deceptions are not to be done.
1. A zero tolerance policy on "lies" does have a psychological cost on both the parents and children (not just convenience) and, while it's great that has worked alright for you, that's not a proof that it can be generalized and get it working well for everyone.
That sounds exactly like the workaround a mildly autistic person would come up with after being lied to a couple of times. Where are you on the autism spectrum?
It sounds exactly like the sorts of thongs my daughters say to each other from time to time. "You LIED! I'll never ever believe anything you say ever again!" And then 2 minutes later they're laughing and joking and whispering secrets to each other about which boy likes which girl at school.
I'm a father (and I also remember something about being a kid) and I can tell you that 4 year old kids are unbelievably egocentric. A lot of the rules adults try to impose that are perfectly reasonable to anyone with enough empathy seem completely arbitrary to a 4 year old. So, "don't yell because that distracts/bothers me" is an "arbitrary" rule coming from a "cranky" dad. "I put a script in the machine that will shut down the screen if you yell too loud" gets translated into "I don't want you to yell", which is, again, an "arbitrary" rule kids don't care about.
On the other hand, "computer doesn't like loud sounds" is a perfectly "reasonable" rule, because the computer is "in charge" of letting you play the game. You disturb the computer, the computer reacts. And you can't argue with it or try to manipulate it. Crying at it or throwing a temper tantrum won't do any good. It has no mouth, so you can't have a conversation with it. In short, you have to follow its rules.
If you want to avoid having the kids jump to the "logical" conclusion that the machine is a person, you can formulate it differently: instead of saying "the computer doesn't like loud sounds", you can say "the computer is a machine that doesn't work well when there's a lot of yelling".
Then again, someone else already pointed out that kids believe that an old, fat man can come down their chimney and leave gifts in a matter of minutes -- and do so for every kid in the freaking world -- without suffering any psychological scars from an "untruthful" method of influencing their behavior (because Santa brings gifts only to kids who are "good"), so I don't see what the big deal is with going through a short period of believing the machine is a person.