We all have imaginary friends that we believe will one day make us magically more successful, rich, and beautiful. It’s just hard for us to observe that from within the system.
Kids, on the other hand, are simple creatures. They’ll demonstrate exactly what they feel and think. That makes observing this effect much easier.
Probably because humans are supposed to naturally live in groups where human friends are plentiful, but lots of human children instead live only with parents.
I grew up with six siblings on a cul-de-sac filled with other families with 3+ children (enough kids for two complete baseball teams) and had imaginary friends.
It's difficult to have a productive, thoughtful conversation when someone reads a moral imperative into the phrase "supposed to" and starts lecturing about it.
The sense of "supposed to" above is: the human system was "designed" for a certain environment, and its behaviors make sense there. Outside of that environment many behaviors won't make sense, but can easily be explained by reference to the original environment. This is not a moral point, although it is one often employed in moral arguments.
At the same time, you can't ignore what we are evolutionarily. If we evolved in small groups or tribes, it is natural to have traits that work better in tribes. Take the judgement out of "natural" or "supposed to" and call it "as designed", or "as evolved".
Maybe better phrased as: "Humans evolved in small communities for thousands of years, but those communities had to be larger than a single family unit in order to survive, so there is an instinctive urge for humans to be in communities."
This is where the steelman comes in. Replace "supposed to" with "have adapted to over the last thousands to millions of years" and enjoy the productive conversation.
The idea that something is "supposed to" happen is a normative statement. But the idea that we aren't "supposed to" do anything is also normative, and is therefore self-contradictory. Any proposition that we are supposed to do one thing or another is not necessarily correct, but at least it is self consistent.
My first response to this comment was very poorly received. I initially thought I had been polite and straightforward, but upon reflection I guess it came across as pretty dismissive. That wasn't my intention at all, and I'm sorry for not presenting a more considerate comment.
My experience growing up had many friends who had imaginary friends, and the highly social ones with grandparents and other extended family at home also had imaginary friends. It's not my anecdotal experience that humans living in groups would lead to fewer imaginary friends.
I queued up a DeepResearch question, and got back the following result: "imaginary friends are by no means a purely “Western” phenomenon – the potential for children to imagine friends is a human trait that transcends culture" [1]
It does seem to be the case that communal upbringing results in lower rates of imaginary friends, but it does *not* seem to be the case that imaginary friends are a byproduct of children living only with their parents.
What reasoning do you have to back this vs. the researchers conclusion that they're doing it mostly "for fun?"
Like, it sounds plausible, but you'd need to show something like an increase in imaginary friend development in places where children are isolated or lonely.
On the meta level, if a statement seems false the burden is on you to prove it. You’re asking your counterpart to do all the work.
On the subject level…
Have you ever seen a troop of monkeys hanging out? They definitely aren’t operating as modern atomic families, and we’re pretty closely related.
Geez, it was only several generations ago that multigenerational family cohabitation was common. And from my personal experience, growing up in a small town and hang out with other kids at will was great.
"If you find your child talking to a can of tomato paste, don't worry". I don't think anyone's ever been worried about kids having imaginary friends. So long as the furniture doesn't start moving by itself.
> These companions can take a variety of forms — in the 2004 study, which looked at 100 6- and 7-year olds, 57 percent of imaginary friends were human, 41 percent were animals, and one was “a human capable of transforming herself into any animal the child wanted.”
I carry around a little illuminated square on which i interact with imaginary friends. Right now I’m imagining that `mmooss` has just asked me a question.
Only thing is, how do I know for sure that I’m not the imaginary one?
In my 3 year old's case, it's largely a matter of re-enacting scenes from her life or things she has seen in cartoons. For example, she has three rubber duckies in the bath, one of which is larger than the other two; that's "Mommy duck" and sometimes she tells the "baby ducks" that she has to go off to work because she's the concertmaster of the orchestra, at which point the baby ducks complain and ask her to stay home with them instead.
Young kids struggle to think about things in abstract; re-enacting situations is a natural part of how they come to understand their experiences. In this case, it's the experience of being left alone with Daddy because Mommy is going to work.
Adults run through things in their heads, sometimes repeatedly, sometimes obsessively for much of their lives (in the case of trauma). We just feel too limited to act it out with toys - but why not? We'll even watch movies, plays, read books, partly because they enact things that trouble us - we'll do anything but be seen to act it out ourselves.
> …these friendships used to be seen as a sign of loneliness or other problems…
> One study found that Japanese children played with their personified objects more during the pandemic than they had beforehand, suggesting an increased role for these imaginary companions during times of isolation…
So lonely isolated kids turn to imaginary friends more often. But imaginary friends are not a sign of loneliness.
The article treats imaginary friends and personification of objects as being the same thing -- while noting that this is not how people actually use the term "imaginary friend" -- so it draws a bizarre conclusion. Nobody is surprised that children like to play with dolls and stuffed animals.
Personification is something everybody does all the time.
Imaginary friends are something children sometimes do because the culture transmits the idea that they should.
Readit News
Kids, on the other hand, are simple creatures. They’ll demonstrate exactly what they feel and think. That makes observing this effect much easier.
We aren't "supposed to" be like the other animals on our planet? Or are many mothers and newborns "supposed to naturally" die during child birth?
It's difficult to have a productive, thoughtful conversation when it starts this way.
The sense of "supposed to" above is: the human system was "designed" for a certain environment, and its behaviors make sense there. Outside of that environment many behaviors won't make sense, but can easily be explained by reference to the original environment. This is not a moral point, although it is one often employed in moral arguments.
Dead Comment
My experience growing up had many friends who had imaginary friends, and the highly social ones with grandparents and other extended family at home also had imaginary friends. It's not my anecdotal experience that humans living in groups would lead to fewer imaginary friends.
I queued up a DeepResearch question, and got back the following result: "imaginary friends are by no means a purely “Western” phenomenon – the potential for children to imagine friends is a human trait that transcends culture" [1]
It does seem to be the case that communal upbringing results in lower rates of imaginary friends, but it does *not* seem to be the case that imaginary friends are a byproduct of children living only with their parents.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/67ea28bd-d674-8000-b4da-188bb56fe2...
Deleted Comment
Like, it sounds plausible, but you'd need to show something like an increase in imaginary friend development in places where children are isolated or lonely.
It sounds like ass talk that is hard to refute or confirm.
I could just as easily say we have imaginary friends to help in cognitive development/processing that the real world isn't adequately fulfilling.
It sounds great and might even be possible.. but it came from my ass.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38603042/
Dead Comment
Your statement intuitively feels false to me, and I would like you to defend it.
On the subject level…
Have you ever seen a troop of monkeys hanging out? They definitely aren’t operating as modern atomic families, and we’re pretty closely related.
Geez, it was only several generations ago that multigenerational family cohabitation was common. And from my personal experience, growing up in a small town and hang out with other kids at will was great.
Real world data is a messy thing
Only thing is, how do I know for sure that I’m not the imaginary one?
Cogito, ergo sum?
Young kids struggle to think about things in abstract; re-enacting situations is a natural part of how they come to understand their experiences. In this case, it's the experience of being left alone with Daddy because Mommy is going to work.
Children will repeat / re-enact things (and just try stuff in general) while adults are too stubborn about looking foolish.
> One study found that Japanese children played with their personified objects more during the pandemic than they had beforehand, suggesting an increased role for these imaginary companions during times of isolation…
So lonely isolated kids turn to imaginary friends more often. But imaginary friends are not a sign of loneliness.
Right.
Personification is something everybody does all the time.
Imaginary friends are something children sometimes do because the culture transmits the idea that they should.
A runny nose is a sign of a cold, even though you can have a runny nose without a cold.