Pretend Play, Part 1
01:09:24 Share

At Cox, our passionate sales professionals are driven to achieve their best in work and life. They sell the greatest B2B technology solutions created by our greatest tech minds. They provide industry-leading managed cloud services and systems that simplify car buying. They use their expertise to create strategies that help satisfy all customer needs, building meaningful relationships that last a lifetime.

Join our sales team and get ready to earn recognition, roll in the rewards, and enjoy benefits while growing across businesses. Go beyond the sale and make a positive impact on the communities you serve. Connect to work that improves lives, including yours. Learn more and apply today at cox.career.com.

At Arizona State University, we're bringing world-class education from our globally acclaimed faculty to you. Ranked number one in innovation for 10 consecutive years and number two among public universities for employability. ASU isn't just ahead of the curve. It's creating new paths to success. Earn your degree from the nation's most innovative university. Online, that's a degree better. Explore more than 300 undergraduate, graduate, and certificate programs at asunline.asu.edu.

I'm Jason Alexander. And I'm Peter Tilden. And together, our mission on the Really Know Really podcast is to get the true answers to life's baffling questions like why the bathroom door doesn't go all the way to the floor, what's in the museum of failure, and does your dog truly love you? We have the answer. Go to reallyknowreally.com and register to win $500, a guest spot on our podcast, or a limited edition signed Jason bobblehead. The Really Know Really podcast. Follow us on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪

Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.

Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb. And I am Joe McCormick. And today we're going to begin a series of episodes looking at the topic of pretend play. And yes, folks, this is one of my baby looked at you topics. Inspired directly by watching my currently two-year-old daughter's wonderful and frightening brain become ever more powerful day by day. Lately, she has been all about

about pretending. Sometimes it is pretending to be things. Rob, I can't remember if I told you about the Christmas elf. Do you know the Christmas elf? Do I know the Christmas elf? Well, there are many elves. This is different than the one on the shelf. This is the... So my daughter pretends to be this thing called the Christmas elf, which mostly just like makes a grotesque kind of gargoyle face and dances wildly to Black Sabbath. That's what Christmas elf is. Oh, okay. Well, you're bringing her up right then.

That seems more in keeping with some of the more archaic forms of elf that we've discussed on the show. Yeah, I don't know. Knowing me, that may sound like a trained behavior, but this is just what naturally emerged from her. I don't know where she got that. That's what Christmas elf is. She's like, Dad, I put on Black Sabbath record. But it runs around, dance into that. And then one of the good pretending to be things the other day was

Uh, she was, uh, she's been playing with some little, uh, little doggies that she got for Christmas, little doggy toys. And, uh, one of them is a beagle. So she, she, you know, she likes talking about the beagle and hearing about the beagle. Uh, but, uh, she was, uh, talking to Rachel the other day and she, I think she was saying woof woof. And Rachel said, oh, are you a beagle right now? And, and she said, no, tater tot. Got very still. Yeah.

I don't know. What exactly are the properties one mimics when being a tater tot that I can't fully inhabit that mindset, but I admire the ambition. Well, I guess it is of the various fried and or baked potato food products. I would say tater tots are the most canine of the bunch. So sure. Yeah.

But a lot of it is so there's a little bit of pretending to be things, but a lot more of it is what when we get into the research later in this episode is what is sometimes called replica play. It is pretending with the aid of toys or props, little little agent toys and making them pretend to do things.

So she's got a bunch of dinosaurs and she loves to make her dinosaurs go night-night and then rapidly wake up and then go night-night again over and over in like a mind-rendingly fast circadian rhythm. She loves to have her little dinosaurs and creatures eat pizza. And there's a lot of discussion of to what extent they're sharing the pizza or not or to what extent they're keeping pieces of pizza to themselves. Yeah.

Uh, sometimes they're eating things that you can see there. There's like a physical prop for the food. Sometimes they're just eating purely imaginary things. There's cake there. That's invisible cake. Um, and then the past few days she's been into, uh, going on a boat on the couch, which is a book on the couch cushion. The couch cushion is the water and the book is the boat. She puts various things on the boat and they get on and off the boat and see things out on the water. And, uh, typically, uh, they're, they're on a boat trip to grandparents' house. Yeah.

Wow. Yeah, it's a magical time. My own child is 12 going on 13 now. So a lot of these, you know, really awesome examples of imagination play are in the past now. But my wife and I certainly look back on them with a lot of fondness. And some of them are still things we frequently discuss in our, you know, day to day conversations.

conversations even a reference rather. But yeah, I remember various antics with these like old plastic dinosaur toys from my childhood. And so those would eat, those dinosaurs were always eating things. I can't remember how much of it was real, how much of it was imagined. And they wouldn't so much go to sleep as they would occasionally go extinct as there would be some sort of a cosmic event.

that would make them all go extinct. But, you know, then they'd be back up and running before too long. That's intense pretend. Yeah, yeah. Facing the realities of nature head on. Well, you know, you tell the story of the dinosaurs. You gotta tell the beginning, the middle, and the end. Yeah. Look, Ma, these are evolving into birds. Yeah.

That's right. Well, we did touch on that aspect of it, too. But we also inevitably, or I inevitably, ended up sort of busting out the sort of childhood version of dinosaurs that I had growing up, which was less about the bird thing and more about just catastrophic fireballs and so forth and exploding volcanoes. I think we've referenced before that like almost all of those old paleo art examples from childhood dinosaur books of like the...

late 70s and the 1980s, they all had an erupting volcano in the background. So it's like... Actively erupting at the moment. And it was kind of implied, or I always thought, like, that's the end back there. It's what's happening. It's the end of days for the dinosaurs. I think it's important to get both visions. Yeah, you know, you get the long-scale evolutionary eons point of view, and then you also get the scary part of Fantasia view. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, I'm excited about these episodes, though, getting into imagination play. It's a topic that

You know, I think we've touched on before on the show, at least in passing. There may be some very old episodes that deal with some of the issues we're going to bring up here, but it's going to be nice to really dive into all of this anew. Yeah, and I'm not sure yet how many episodes we're going to go to in this series. We're looking at least two, but maybe three or more if the topic takes us there. But clearly this is a rich subject. There's a lot of scientific research in this area, but also just a lot of, you know, interesting philosophical thought going back centuries there.

So there's going to be a lot to get into. But I thought a good place to start would just be a good, broad sort of overview paper looking at the subject from a psychology, cognitive science and child development point of view. And I found a good paper in that regard by Dina Skolnick-Weisberg, published in the journal Cognitive Science in 2015 called Pretend Play.

And so, Rob, if you're ready, I thought we should just go ahead and dive right into this paper and talk about some of the topics brought up in it, some of the research covered, and then we can branch out from there. All right, let's do it. So we start with definitions. Weisberg defines pretend play as any playful behavior that involves non-literality.

literal action. So to paraphrase, play that operates on the premise of a thing or situation being other than what it literally is. So there are types of play that are not pretend play. You can think of a game of tag or a game of kickball. This is

clearly play, but it's not really pretend play because what you're, I mean, you could imagine versions that involve pretend elements, but at the baseline, this is a game that is taken literally. What the children mostly think they're doing is playing the literal game.

Yeah, yeah. Like a game of kickball is just a game of kickball unless you do what I do distinctly remember doing when I was a kid is pretending that kickball was some sort of like sci-fi gladiatorial combat scenario, you know. And I imagine kids are probably doing similar things today, like imagining it's Squid Games. And so, well, I guess it depends on the age. But, you know, dreaming it up a little bit, adding that layer of imagination on top of it.

it. I recall specifically doing this with tag because I enjoyed playing tag a lot and my friends and I in elementary school age played tag, but I remember I would spice it up mentally sometimes with the cooperation of others, or maybe just in my own mind by imagining myself and other players as characters from movies I liked in the context of tag. So like,

I just saw the movie Anaconda starring Ice Cube and Jennifer Lopez, you know, and I am now pretending to be this character from Anaconda as we play tag. That was probably too mature of a movie for me at that point. We need to come back to Anaconda on Weird House Cinema, by the way. It's so good. One of the most unhinged performances of all time, John Voight in that movie. Yeah.

All right. All right. So I think everybody gets where we're going with this. Yeah, it's like there's like basically like pure sport is is not imaginative.

And then there are other kinds of play that once again could break down either way. So building with blocks could be pretend to play depending on how you're playing, but it isn't necessarily. You might just be building with blocks. And so sometimes when I build with blocks with my daughter, the impression I get is that it's just about building with blocks. You know, she wants to build a big tower, make a bunch of blocks.

But if you think about it as we are building a skyscraper and there are going to be people living inside it and so forth, then I guess it is pretend play. Yeah. Like you get into some of the bigger kid uses of Legos, for example. I remember doing this and I've seen my child do this as well, where,

You are really almost creating an imaginative fetish item out of the out of the blocks, you know, be it some sort of a character or a creature or, you know, in my case, it was often some sort of a robot or a mech suit, you know, whatever the case may be. And it.

It is about connecting blocks together and building something, making a form. But then you were like filling that form with more meaning via your imagination. Yeah, exactly. But OK, so here's where like clear pretend play comes in. When my child picks up an old DVD player remote control that we took the batteries out of and holds it up to her ear and says that she is calling her grandmother on the phone, that's definitely pretend play.

At some level, she knows the remote is not a phone. And, you know, Nana does not talk back to her, but she likes to pretend and thinks it's very funny. Yes, yes. My child also did a lot of phone pretend play as well, picking up various items, remote controls, blocks, what have you, pretending they're phones. So that's a pretty clear case. Coming back to more ambiguous cases, one that I think is huge is like play fighting.

Play fighting could be non-pretend to play. It could be understood as just literally a form of kind of freeform wrestling competition between children. Or kids engaging in play fighting might be assuming the non-literal form of characters and a scenario. Yeah.

Yeah. My mind here instantly goes to lightsaber fighting, uh, because, uh, my own child did a lot of this. Um, uh, and it, and it took different forms, right? Because if you're going to pretend to fight with lightsabers, you can have a full, like official lightsaber toy with an extendable plastic cone that serves as the blade of the lightsaber, um, or laser sword, if you will. Uh, and, um,

But then you can have just a pre-made hilt that you're pretending there is a light blade emanating from. You can do what my child did and take foil, like roll of foil, roll of saran wrap tubes, little cardboard tubes, drop them in the water.

dress those up as lightsaber hilts and then you're fighting with those pretending again that the blade is there or you can do what i think a lot of kids do is you just pretend the hilt is there as well so like i can draw a lightsaber right now and just go and you know you know exactly what i have in my hand and you can engage in battles uh and so they're like different levels of having any kind of like actual physical property there to play off of

Yeah, that's right. So you can imagine there's sort of different levels of extension of the imagination, depending on what physical props you're using or how far away the the situation or scenario or object you're imagining is from the physical reality.

So, you know, there's a sort of greater imaginative leap involved in taking a paper towel tube and saying that's a lightsaber than holding like a toy painted up to look like a real lightsaber and saying that's a real lightsaber. Both involve some imagination, but one kind of is a bigger leap. And then it's an even bigger leap to take nothing at all. Just, you know, you're completely imagining the presence of a prop in any case.

and say that's the lightsaber. And then is it me with the lightsaber, to your point, or am I Obi-Wan? Am I Anakin? Yeah. And so forth. So yeah, there's so many different levels of the imagination to employ here. ♪

Look, I get it. Going back to school might seem unrealistic for your hectic life, but it's achievable when it's with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that makes higher education accessible for real people with real lives. With tuition starting at around $8,000 per year and courses you can take 24-7, WGU provides the flexibility and personalized support that can help you go back to school successfully. So, what are you waiting for? Apply today at wgu.edu.

I'm Jason Alexander and I'm Peter Tilden and together on the really no really podcast our mission is to get the true answers to life's baffling questions like why they refuse to make the bathroom door go all the way to the floor we got the answer will space junk block your cell signal the astronaut who almost drowned during a spacewalk gives us the answer we talk with the scientist who figured out if your dog truly loves you and the one bringing back the woolly mammoth plus is

Does Tom Cruise really do his own stunts? His stuntman reveals the answer. And you never know who's going to drop by. Mr. Bryan Cranston is with us tonight. How are you, too? Hello, my friend. Wayne Knight about Jurassic Park. Wayne Knight, welcome to Really, No Really, sir. Bless you all. Hello, Newman. And you never know when Howie Mandel might just stop by to talk about judging. Really? That's what I'm talking about.

It's the opening? Really, no really. Yeah, really. No really. Go to reallynoreally.com. And register to win $500, a guest spot on our podcast, or a limited edition signed Jason bobblehead. It's called Really, No Really, and you can find it on the iHeartRadio app, on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

So the purpose of this review by Weisberg was to define pretend play, to differentiate it from other types of playful activities, and then to kind of look at ways that pretend play fits into the development of various cognitive and social skills in childhood.

And since pretend play seems to involve many of the same mental structures as complex adult capacities like counterfactual reasoning, theory of mind, symbolic understanding and so forth, looking at pretend to play really could help us better understand many aspects of the brain and the mind.

So this review in particular looks at the relationship between pretend play and symbolic understanding, theory of mind, and counterfactual reasoning. I think we might save at least one of those. I think the deeper exploration of theory of mind for part two, because that gets into a lot of other stuff. But I'm going to try to talk about symbolic understanding and counterfactual reasoning today. But the author kicks things off by trying to define and characterize pretend play itself. Now, even going back a step further,

not just pretend to play, but play as a concept has proven notoriously difficult for researchers. There's like a whole literature arguing over what play is, what definition best captures the essence of play. What do we mean when we call something play? Which types of edge cases count and which do not? So play is just extremely variable from child to child across different cultures.

Different people look at the same activity and say that is play. No, that's not play. So there's really no way to draw a clean boundary around this concept that everybody's going to accept. You will just have to sit with the fact that some people are going to say, no, I don't agree that that's what play is.

Right. And this is going to kind of continue through our whole analysis of pretend play, because there's going to be a lot of going back and forth. Well, some researchers say this classifies as such and such and others disagree. Yeah, it just depends how you tease it apart. Yes, that's certainly the case. I mean, we are in the higher order sciences. We're more in the realm of psychology and cognitive science and a lot of things. They're just not as clean as they are in chemistry. Right.

Now, one of the main criteria that seems to be common to definitions of play is that it is what Weisberg calls non-instrumental activity, meaning it has no immediate goal or purpose other than enjoyment.

So you might actually enjoy something that is not play. Maybe you enjoy splitting logs into firewood. But even if you do, most people would not think of splitting wood as play because it has an immediate functional goal. It's about transforming resources into a more usable form. So even if, I don't know, you bring a spirit of playfulness to your log splitting and you really enjoy the activity, most people don't look at that and say that is play. Yeah.

This is really interesting to think about this distinction because, you know, I catch myself as what I like to think is a pretty pro play adult rationalizing that some of my hobbies, like like mini painting, for instance, rationalizing it on the basis that, well, this is going to result in something that can be utilized in another activity, generally a social activity. And therefore, it's not like there's not this huge sunk cost to it. You know, it's not a big waste of time.

which, you know, there's a lot of false thinking and all that, I think. And likewise, you know, I've often thought about, or at least I've thought about this more over the last 10 years or so, about how, you know, especially in a very capitalist society, I think a lot of us end up buying into this corrupting notion that if we're good at something, or even if we just enjoy something, if it brings us pleasure,

well, then shouldn't we be generating some profits off of our love or our talent or what have you? You know, and I should add the caveat, you know, there's nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with turning your passion, your hobby, your talent into a career or side hustle, making a few bucks off of it here and there. Even if you're just sort of paying for part of that hobby, certainly, yeah, go wild. But,

We should also feel free to play without having to deal with this inner voice saying, well, you're not good enough at it unless you can somehow transition that fun over into a profit. That any time spent having fun, any time spent playing is like just wasted time. It's okay to engage in passions that pay only in fun or maybe socialization. And

And this is a huge one for me too, that, um, I distinctly remember, um,

somebody sharing this with me several years back that, you know, it's okay not to be perfect at your passions and hobbies. You know, I think a lot of times, like without even thinking about it, without even rationalizing that like out loud in our, or, or, you know, at a higher level of consciousness, you know, we still sort of buy into this idea that it's like, well, I'm, I'm, I'm a grownup. If I'm doing, if I'm engaging in play, well then can I turn this into a business? Can I make a, you know, can I somehow rationalize it through the almighty dollar? Yeah.

So that ends up being how far removed we are as often are as adults from like the pure childhood essence of play.

Yeah, I fully agree with all that. In fact, you know, people, you may have heard some version of this advice before, but I would go against the grain with with people who say, you know, find a way to get paid for doing what you love. You know, it's like take your passion and turn that into a job because that may mean that every day you get to do what you love or it may mean that what is something that you used to love just gets turned into a chore. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. And, you know, certainly you hear stories about people who seem perfectly content with turning their passion into their job. But you also hear plenty of stories about people who have the reverse situation where the thing they used to love has now become something.

the thing they have to do every day. Yeah. I guess nobody can figure it out for you whether that's going to be true in your case or not. So you'll just have to experiment, but be aware that that does happen. But this is not a problem that the children have.

Correct. Though I do want to stress while we're here that though we most often associate play with childhood, I think I've said on the show before that I think play is the work of childhood. When children are playing, they're doing their job. It does extend through the entire lifespan. I mean, it's clear that even adults going all throughout the lifetime engage in different types of play. There are games, there's word play, construction play, role playing of various kinds.

So, you know, it doesn't stop after childhood, but clearly childhood is the most intensive period of play in life.

Now, pretend play specifically has an extended definition that takes it beyond just play generally. And Weisberg summarizes it as follows, quote, pretend play crucially involves some form of representation or acting as if such that the behaviors or actions that take place in a pretend game are not meant to literally reflect reality.

So there is some extent to which what happens in pretend play is understood by the people playing to not be literally real. Now, there are a lot of different types of pretend play. And I got interested in the taxonomy of these plays, these almost like family trees of play type. And one that is very familiar to most people is opulence.

object substitution pretense. This is treating one object as if it were another. So we already mentioned the remote control is a telephone. It can't actually place calls, but you hold it up to your head. You say hello. You say ring ring. You pretend to call your grandmother, whatever.

Another one that I have to mention is, of course, Stick is a Gun. This one, I remember encountering this one a lot on the playground. Generally, you'd have like one group of children. In my recollection, you know, playing peacefully, doing something cute. And then here come another band of children and they have sticks and then they start firing sticks as if they are guns. Always a hot discussion on parenting forums. So get ready for that one, Joe.

Yeah, I know that's coming. But at the same time, I don't want I mean, I'm not thrilled about the idea of sticks as guns, but at the same time, I don't want to totally demonize conflict play. I mean, I think there's probably some healthy amount of kind of, you know, the non-bullying forms of kind of play fighting and stuff that can be OK. But there's also like, you know, caretaking play, you know, treating the treating the little plastic dinosaur as a baby. Yeah, exactly.

Often a lot of, I remember a lot of food preparation and foraging play. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In fact, tying into Christmas pretend play experiences just recently. Yeah. My daughter has been big into making pretend food for her babies and dinosaurs and everything to eat. Yeah.

And the making of the pretend food is so chaotic. It's truly marvelous. Like, you know, there's a little pretend pot and into it goes the box of rice with the box and a banana and a hot dog and, you know, grapes and everything. And you're just imagining all of this together. And it's like, do you think that would taste good? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

But to jump out of the pretend mindset for a second, one thing that Weisberg sort of specifies about object substitution play is.

is that in this kind of play, actions that are directed toward the object do not actually affect the object in the intended way. They take place, you know, within what is called a pretend world or a pretend frame. So when the child pretends to cook pretend food in a, you know, in a toy pot or something, the food does not actually get heated to the point of boiling or whatever.

There's just generally a pretend logic of the effects of actions upon the object that is substituted. Now, coming back to a question we raised earlier, sometimes it is not clear if a play behavior is pretend play or just literal play. Like we brought up the idea of a child building with blocks. So they're building a big stack of blocks. Are they just building a big stack of blocks or are they pretending to build blocks?

to build a structure that people live inside. Sometimes the distinction could be blurry and fluid, easily switching back and forth between the literal frame and the pretend frame. For, you know, in one minute, it might be just a stack of blocks. The next minute, oh, it is a building full of people. Then they might forget it's a building full of people and it's just blocks again.

And this problem of temporal switching between literal play and pretend play can, of course, create difficulties for researchers who want to study this. Same distinction with play fighting, right? Like, are we literally just wrestling or am I Dwayne the Rock Johnson and you're Jason Statham or whatever? Yeah, yeah. It's interesting to think about how this switches back and forth, not only with kids, but as adults. Like, you know, you can think of something like...

Writing, you know, at times writing can take on a feeling of play, you know, where you're losing yourself in an imaginative exercise. But then, oh, you've got to stop and do a little grammar or a little bit of IT work, I guess, nowadays. Or in the old days, it would have been, oh, now I have to fix the typewriter. You know, there are various tasks we engage in will shift gears on us.

Now, one question is, when does this happen in childhood? The answer is it varies, but pretend play behavior most often starts to appear around 18 months old or so, though there's variation in the timeline. So, you know, sometimes it's earlier, sometimes it's later. Usually the earliest form of pretend play observed is what we were just talking about. It's

object substitution. Pretending an object is something else. Now, interesting question is why does that come first to come before these other types of pretend play that I'm about to get into? Maybe we can come back to that later. A variation on object substitution is what you already mentioned with the sort of the receding physical prop concept of the lightsaber arising usually in early preschool years, maybe meaning around two to three years old.

is object substitution involving invisible or non-existent objects. So usually you get with a prop object substitution first. That might start around 18 months or so. And then, you know, in the next couple of years, you can get fully pretend phone. So it's not like I'm holding a remote and pretending it's a phone. There's nothing in my hand, but I have a phone and I'm calling grandmother. Mm-hmm.

Also in the early preschool years, Weisberg says that kids start to make a distinction between two different things. They distinguish between what's called enactment play versus replica play. And so the difference goes like this. Enactment play is like

I dress up like dad and pretend to cook dinner like him, possibly involving props. You know, you might have a play kitchen and toy utensils and food or not involving these props, just doing it with the invisible. But I am the one pretending with my body to be the something else versus replica play is I have my doll cook dinner in a tiny kitchen in the dollhouse.

Both are forms of pretend play, but in enactment play, the child is themselves playing the part. And in replica play, the child makes a physical avatar like a doll play the part. Now, springboarding off of that, the paper gets into something that we may put off because I don't know if you want to say something about this now, Rob, or if you just want to save it for part two, but it does get into imaginary companions as well.

Yeah, largely we'll save that for the next episode. But I will briefly mention that you can still get into distinctions of what is an imaginary friend, what is an imaginary companion, and how sometimes personified objects are seen as examples of imaginary companions. So, you know, it's one of these things where...

it's easy to think, oh, imaginary friend. That's a definitely one thing. It's definitely an invisible counterpart that a child has this imagined relationship with. But when you get into the... Particularly, I was looking at one meta-analysis that I'll reference in the next episode. It gets a little more complex than that, and there are different ways of, again, teasing it apart. Yeah, sometimes there's a prop there to, like, a classic example is Hobbes in Calvin and Hobbes. This is a...

understood to be in physical reality a stuffed animal, but it is imagined by the child to be an entity with a consistent personality that the child interacts with over time, in which case it really is sort of a form of imaginary companion, even though there is a physically existing prop. Yeah, and sometimes that prop...

I was reading, you know, it can actually seem to enhance the imaginative aspect. So, you know, it might be tempting to think about it in the reverse and think, well, this is here to sort of stand in for imagination. But no, it can often enhance it. And, you know, man, you can go wild with just that concept alone, thinking about imagination.

Examples of various physical representations of deities and fantastic beings and creatures. And in many cases, beings and entities thought to have some level of reality to adult human practitioners of various religions and so forth throughout time. And even down to...

various knickknacks and toys that grown folks may have on their desks at home or in the office, you know, an avatar of Godzilla, you know, that maybe enhances the reality of Godzilla. There's a concept Weisberg mentions in this paper that we may want to come back to when we do the full thing on imaginary companions, but it is the idea of paracosms, right?

Meaning, quote, imaginary worlds occupied by many pretend entities and subject to their own internal rules. So I think that's sort of like extending the concept of an imaginary companion to more like a whole world of potential imaginary companions that, you know, it's like a different world that has its own rules and its own inhabitants. And I have imaginary access to it.

Wow, the unseen world. Yeah, I mean, it is almost time startling to think about how...

how closely all of this mirrors the more sort of, we often think, you know, complex systems of the real and the imagined, the real and the mythic and so forth that adults have. Like to a certain extent, it's already there, or at least it's already well coming together at a very early age. Yeah. Yeah. And actually that brings us to the next thing from this paper I wanted to talk about, which is the distinction between pretend and reality, right?

So for most children, the peak density of pretend play is observed between the ages of three and five. Though, as we've seen, it starts earlier than that and it really extends all throughout life in more limited ways. But between three and five is when most kids are doing the most pretending. There's a lot going on. And so when that's happening, adults around these children often find themselves wondering, well,

Can kids tell the difference between fantasy and reality? It's a kind of natural thing for parents to start. I don't know. I don't know if most parents actually worry about it, but to at least kind of wonder, like, do they understand this isn't real? And though I think there are very natural reasons that

adults wonder or even worry about this. Weisberg says that the research shows, yes, generally, even quite young children have no trouble distinguishing between pretend facts and real facts. And by around age four, most children can explain that what happens in the pretend play is not, quote, real.

It seems that children do make more pretense reality confusion errors than adults, but they're still usually aware of the difference.

Yeah, I mean, it's understandable that as parents, we can be overprotective, overly protective, and we may, you know, we'll at least sometimes question it and we'll think, well, did they really know what's real and what's not? What's the deal with this imaginary friend? Who is this imaginary friend? And then added on top of that, as I'll get into more in the next episode, is the

Certainly for a while there, imaginary friends were not seen as being a positive aspect of childhood development. They were seen as a red flag,

And I think there's still a legacy of that sort of in the popular mindset, you know, even though we've moved on from that view of things. Yeah, the stuff I was reading did not suggest imaginary companions were anything to worry about and that they're extremely common somewhere, depending on how you define it, somewhere between like a third to two thirds of kids under seven have them. Though it still can be weird when you hear about it. You know, you're like, oh, you have an imaginary friend and you're speaking about them as if they're real and

you know, and part of that is we've, you know, a lot of us have seen too many horror movies. So that's where our mind goes, you know, but no, it's, there's, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it according to the current research. Yeah. And also studies of pretend play have found that in general, children are quite good at what the author of this paper calls quarantining, which means that like causal or mechanical understandings from a pretend game do not affect understandings in reality. Uh,

So an example given in the paper is like a child will use a banana as a pretend telephone and they can be really into this banana phone game. But it does not lead the child to believe that bananas can actually place calls or that real phones can be eaten. So they're able to quarantine the implications of the pretend game and not let that affect their understanding of how the world works. Yeah.

So that's one less thing you parents have to freak out about is that pretend phone play will lead to the eating of phones and the frenzied attempt to make calls on bananas.

Now, I was wondering, though, I mean, of course, there might be individual cases where there is something, you know, that is worth following up about. But in most cases, it's not much to worry about when kids are playing pretend. They actually can basically tell the difference. So why do adults worry about this? I think one reason might just be like the commitment with which children engage in pretend play. It's a level of understanding.

unselfconscious gameness for enjoyment in a scenario that is difficult for adults to understand, even if they're adults who are still pretty well practiced in pretend play. Maybe you're an adult who does theater and does D&D and stuff, so you pretend a lot more than most adults do. Still, you probably cannot really get in the level of gameness for pretend that a child has. Well, they just do it so earnestly and

and unashamedly. And at the same time, as adults, I feel like we often compartmentalize our imagined worlds and our dreaming. Either it is tied up with particular acts and activities, social or otherwise, creative endeavors, or we just kind of like, I don't know, we can be very...

hypocritical when we think about it, you know, like we may be spending, you know, a large portion of our days reverting into some sort of a fantasy world, be it something we've dreamt up or something that has been dreamt up by authors and artists and so forth. But yeah, it's a different scenario than to see it in the child. And then on top of that, I think

There is this, or at least I'm speaking mostly for my own part here, but as a parent, you look to your child and especially during those early days, you really want to hold on to

And appreciate these like this pure imagination and all of these various aspects of childhood. But at the same time, like you do want them to develop and grow and you you realize they will grow out of this and they will become ever become small adults eventually entering into an adult world.

So we're kind of like torn, you know, like we want them to change, but the last thing we want is for them to change. And it results probably in all sorts of, again, counterintuitive ideas and expectations. And we can also be hypocritical in the way we judge things like the pursuit of fantasy. Yeah. I mean, that tension is like one of the most classically, I guess, understood bittersweet things about being a parent. Yeah. Yeah. You want them to grow up, but you don't. Mm-hmm.

And then at the same time, yeah, you can't help but be a bit anxious and worrying and like, well, they will they ever know the difference between a banana and a phone? Is this permanent or is this just a kid thing? Now, on the other hand, to be fair, it is still found that children make more pretense reality distinction errors than adults do. And parents and other adult caregivers do see some instances where children really can't seem to tell the difference between imagination and reality or where like

Something from the imagination infects their reality. An example given in the paper is like when an originally fun pretend monster game becomes scary to the child. So, you know, like you're running around playing monster chase where mom is a monster and she's roaring and chasing the child around. And this is not a scary game to the child. The child thinks this is like very funny and very fun and running around laughing, squealing.

But then maybe one time after this game, seemingly out of nowhere, the child becomes upset and says she's scared. She says now she thinks there's a monster in her closet and she's scared to go to bed. I mean, I still do this to myself occasionally where I'm like, oh, that horror movie was fun until it wasn't. Yes. And it's not just fear also. You know, you can have like, oh, my toy kitty cat fell off the couch and she got hurt and now I'm actually sad. I'm like crying. Yeah.

So, you know, what's going on here? Well, here Weisberg doesn't fully know the answer, but refers to a couple of other short papers addressing this issue of like what's happening when it seems like kids, when the imagination infects the understanding of reality. And one of the papers was by an author named Ted Ruffman, published in the Journal of Developmental Science in 2002, called Pretense Reality Confusions in Children and Adults. I went and looked this up and

I'll try to quickly summarize what Ruffman thinks, but it's addressing issues like when the pretend monster has suddenly become scary. And Ruffman says much along the lines you were saying, Rob, it's helpful to look at adult analogies to better understand what's going on.

And one of the principles he brings up is availability or salience. You know, adults also get scared after watching a horror movie for fun, despite fully understanding that the movie is not real and cannot hurt them. So you just finished watching new Nosferatu or something, and you don't want to go downstairs by yourself. Is it because you can't tell the difference between fiction and reality? Probably not. Right.

Ruffman argues that instead the fear caused by a fictional horror movie is probably due to a combination of, number one, emotion. We'll come to that in a second. But also availability or salience. And in psychology, these terms mean essentially increased awareness of something. So, yeah.

you know a horror movie even though you don't think the events of it are real it just sort of puts front of mind for you the idea of deadly threats and uh and threatening otherworldly encounters whether or not you think they're actually likely to happen to you now it's just high in your awareness and so that puts you on edge for threats of whatever type

The other thing is emotion. It's possible that what gets carried over from, say, watching a movie is a free-floating emotion without a reference in the real world. So again, you know that the events of the sad movie or the scary movie are not literally true, but they give you an emotion that

lingers and then that emotion without a reference in your life can just kind of get attached to whatever. This may happen even easier for children because children may feel emotions even more intensely. And the act of pretending itself tends to result in heightened emotions for children. I don't want to complicate things too much by bringing up dreams, but I feel like this is maybe more pronounced for

grownups in that situation where you wake up from a disturbing dream and you still feel disturbed. You know, you can't help but carry that over into at least the first portion of your morning, even though you know that was a dream. And maybe even analysis of the like facts of the dream are just ridiculous. But the feeling remains. And I think I have in

encountered that with films before as well. If they are particularly, either I'm particularly sensitive or the vibe is particularly strong in a given film or some combination of the two. So yeah, taking those two into account I think helps me better understand where a child may be coming from when they have this situation occur. Yeah. But then there's a third thing Ruffman brings up that I think is that, so we have those similarities with kids on those first two things, the emotion and the

and the availability or salience. But then there's a big difference, which is our background knowledge. Ruffman points out that simply put, kids know less than adults about how the world works and what is in it. So it is actually less unreasonable than it seems to adults for children to entertain implausible scenarios like there's a monster in my closet. By the time you're 40, you should be aware that this is actually not something that happens in reality. You've

They're not monsters in closets. But when you're three, it's reasonable to consider this is a still live option. Like you don't have enough experience to reasonably rule that out. By the time you're 40, though, like late 30s, still still understandable.

So this still does not necessarily mean that children have confused what happens in a pretend game with what happens in reality. So, you know, a child might worry that there is an unseen monster in the closet, but would probably not worry that like, you know.

Mommy playing the monster chase game, that means mom literally turned into a monster when she was chasing the kid around and roaring. You know, there can just be kind of a vague infection of ideas from one to the other, even if you don't confuse the pretend scenario for a literal reality. Yeah, yeah. It's also worth caveating here, though, that, you know, even as adults, we can still, even though we...

think we know how the world works. It doesn't mean we really know how the world works at all levels. And we're also prone to latching on to best-case scenarios and worst-case scenarios as if those are the most likely outcomes. So, yeah, there's a lot of room for error in all of this. But, yeah, I understand the basic idea here. The kids just know less about the world and they're able to...

they're more susceptible to the contagion of those ideas.

I'm Jason Alexander and I'm Peter Tilden and together on the really no really podcast our mission is to get the true answers to life's baffling questions like why they refuse to make the bathroom door go all the way to the floor we got the answer will space junk block your cell signal the astronaut who almost drowned during a spacewalk gives us the answer we talk with the scientist who figured out if your dog truly loves you and the one bringing back the woolly mammoth plus is

Does Tom Cruise really do his own stunts? His stuntman reveals the answer. And you never know who's going to drop by. Mr. Bryan Cranston is with us today. How are you, too? Hello, my friend. Wayne Knight about Jurassic Park. Wayne Knight, welcome to Really, No Really, sir. Bless you all. Hello, Newman. And you never know when Howie Mandel might just stop by to talk about judging. Really? That's what I'm talking about.

It's the opening? Really, no really. Yeah, really. No really. Go to reallynoreally.com. And register to win $500, a guest spot on our podcast, or a limited edition signed Jason bobblehead. It's called Really, No Really, and you can find it on the iHeartRadio app, on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All right. From here, I want to skip over a few things in the paper and move on to talking about a couple of the mental capacities that the author of this paper mentioned as possibly being related to pretend play in childhood. And the three that the author explores are symbolic understanding, theory of mind and counterfactual reasoning. As I said, we might save theory of mind more for part two, but applying to all three of these concepts.

Pretend play appears to have links to the development of these abilities, but there are a lot of questions about how strong these links are and how they work. Like, should it be understood that pretend to play is causally necessary for learning any of them? Or is it merely facilitative, meaning making it easier or faster to learn them?

Or could they be working in the opposite direction like the the nascent beginnings of these capacities are what makes pretend play possible or could pretend play be what is called epiphenomenal meaning an unnecessary byproduct of these developing capacities like it doesn't do anything itself. It just emerges because the brain can do these things. Hmm.

Weisberg notes that this really is difficult to study scientifically. It's hard to get really conclusive answers on a lot of these questions, especially because it is hard to build robust and ethical experiments on this. Like you can't really have control groups in which

So the first thing to look at here is symbolic understanding.

Pretend play is really interesting because it is symbolic in nature. And to come back to one example that shows this pretty easily, usually the first acquired form of pretend play in child development, object substitution. So the stick is a sword. The remote control is a phone. This washcloth is a warm blanket for the baby dinosaur.

Things stand in for other things that they, in a literal sense, are not, though they might be closer or further in physical form to the thing they're supposed to represent.

You know, pretending a baby doll is a baby is still a form of pretending because even though a baby doll is made to be, is to look like a baby, it resembles a baby. It is not literally a baby. So like, you know, when you feed it, it doesn't actually eat and so forth. But pretending a remote control is a phone, like that's, that's rather straightforward. And actually, I mean, really, when you're a baby,

super young, like what's the difference between all of these various gadgets that your parents have in their house, right? I mean, it's all just slightly different versions of the same thing. Sure. Yeah. Yet, despite the general lack of understanding about, you know, the intricacies of how a lot of devices work in real life in pretend play, I mean, a child can really learn to consistently across time manipulate a symbolic object as if it were the thing it represented and

having the properties functions and effects of the pretend object. So like, you know, the child might not really understand fully how a phone works, but they can keep treating the remote as a phone. They place calls with it. They might even try to FaceTime, you know, the like bill, they will go through activities that they've seen adults do with the phone. So, um,

Weisberg notes that some child development scholars dispute the extent to which pretend to play should be seen as strictly symbolic. Now, there are a couple of different frameworks here, different ways of thinking about what pretending is in something like object substitution. Is it simply a behavior or is it actually a mentalistic process of representation in the brain? Is it a mental state?

Now, Weisberg explains the behavior view like this, quote, when pretending that a banana is a phone, one behaves as if the banana was a phone and performs the actions with the banana that would be appropriate if the banana was a phone.

No mentalizing is necessary for the game to proceed, as the pretense is connected primarily to behaviors and not necessarily to mental states or intentions. So in this view, the child does not actually need to have separate concepts of banana and phone and mentally apply the attributes of the phone to the banana, understanding that they are in fact different. Instead, they're just treating the banana as if it were actually a phone.

What is the support for this view? Well, Weisberg cites research where if you take four-year-olds and five-year-olds, take these children, and you show them a character hopping like a kangaroo, and then you tell the kids that the character who hops like a kangaroo does not know what a kangaroo is, and then you ask them, is the hopping character pretending to be a kangaroo?

The majority of four and five-year-olds will say yes. In their view, the hopping character is pretending to be a kangaroo, even if the character has never heard of a kangaroo and doesn't know what it is. Now, actually, I think that's a really interesting finding. That might seem kind of subtle, and I don't know whether it proves the pure behavior view of pretend play, but I think that's just kind of an interesting result nonetheless. I don't think adults would make the same judgment. I think if you asked adults...

We would probably mostly say that you need to know what something is in order to pretend to be that thing. But for a lot of four and five year olds, no, you only need to act like a thing to pretend to be it. Yeah, for adults, I feel like the revelation that the individual has.

Acting like a kangaroo doesn't know what a kangaroo is like that's potentially horrifying. Yeah, that makes things a lot more concerning. Yeah, but they're just like, well, yeah, they're pretending to be a kangaroo. Of course, they're pretending to be a kangaroo. It doesn't matter if they don't know what one is. They are pretending to be a kangaroo.

But Weisberg argues that subsequent research on this question has made the initial result maybe a little more complicated. And it's possible that this doesn't really tell us what's happening when children pretend, but is instead addressing a second order related question of.

how children conceptualize what pretending is, which is an interesting question, but a different one because like a child may not actually be able to fully explain their own mental states when pretending. They might be doing one thing when pretending, but when you ask a child what pretending is, they'll tell you something kind of different. Yeah. It's such an adult impulse to, to like, okay, that thing you were doing, um,

Now I'm going to ruin it by asking you to explain it. They're just doing it. They're just engaging in the pretend play.

Now, the other view, the mental symbolism view, this is the view that says children are indeed engaging in mental symbolism when they play pretend. And in this case, the game, quote, crucially requires understanding something about the mental states involved so that one is aware what is intended in the game. So under this view, it would be important to understand that you are intending to pretend to be a kangaroo in order to pretend to be a kangaroo.

So in this view, like if a kid is playing the banana phone game, it is necessary that they understand and that all play partners understand that the banana is supposed to represent a phone. Now, as evidence supporting this view, Weisberg cites some other interesting experimental findings.

One is experiments showing that kids in this preschool age can readily navigate a bunch of different pretend to play episodes with different partners, which depends on keeping track of what each different play partner knows about what the play props represent.

So maybe dad knows, but mom does not know that this pile of crayons is actually spaghetti and my dinosaurs are eating it. Mom would need to be informed that the crayons are spaghetti. Now, how can you tell that children have this ability to navigate like the different understandings like this?

children often get upset or protest when a play partner starts using a prop literally instead of in its symbolic identity. So like if we're playing the crayons or spaghetti game and then I go pick up a spaghetti crayon and start drawing with it, the

the child is very likely to be like, no, that is spaghetti, not a crayon. If you encountered this. Oh yeah. Yeah, definitely. In these more abstract forms, but also the, in the case of stuffed animals or stuffies, like what is the difference between a stuffed animal and a pillow? Try and use a beloved stuffed animal as a pillow and the child will let you know. Oh yeah. Classic. That's a great one. But so generally, yeah,

The children in this kind of example only protest like this if the play partner should be expected to know about the substitution. So like if the person they're playing with was present when the pretense began. So that's kind of interesting that, you know, the child will have more patience for somebody who just entered the picture and doesn't understand that the crayons are spaghetti. More evidence that pretend to play is mentally symbolic and not just behavioral is

Some actions observed in pretend play only make sense if there is a symbolic representation and do not make sense if the child were simply behaving as if the object really was the substitution object. Here's an example. You've got a little Lego block and you decide it's a car and you are pushing the Lego block around and saying vroom vroom and making horn honking sounds. Children do stuff like this all the time.

Is that what a child does in relation to a real car?

push it around and say vroom vroom no in a real car the child like gets inside and rides and maybe looks out the window there is no behavior to enact in relation to a real car that is similar to pushing a tiny object around on the ground and making vrooming sounds and horn honking sounds with your mouth this this really only makes sense if the child understands that the block is not a car but represents a car hmm

So in the end, Weisberg argues that the symbolic view of pretense is better supported by the evidence. Now, what does this mean for the broader idea of symbolic understanding in child development?

Again, it's hard to prove this kind of thing conclusively, but a lot of researchers have suggested that there's a link between pretend play and symbolic thinking. And it means that pretend play could be important for the development of the most significant form of symbolic thinking in human culture, which is language.

Language is inherently symbolic because a word is not the thing itself. It only represents the thing. So it may be that pretend play gives children a chance to practice symbolic thinking, which in turn helps accelerate their acquisition of language in early childhood.

Some researchers apparently think this, but again, it's hard to disentangle the variables and see which direction, if any, the causal relationship goes. One thing is pretty clear is that pretending is not necessary for language acquisition, but it may simply make it easier and faster.

Weisberg briefly offers another interesting idea. This is almost just an aside in a sentence, but it really started working around in my brain. Weisberg writes, quote, play may provide an especially facilitative environment for children to experiment with new syntactic constructions.

If I understand that right, I think this means that because pretending during play allows you to generate infinitely variable scenarios without ever having to leave your home or your normal routines, it encourages novel constructions of language-based thought.

So in other words, a child may literally do almost the same thing in the same place most days, but because playing pretend can create weird novel situations with very little effort or risk, you will be required to think and speak new sentences, which is important as you get better at speaking and practice your language skills. You know, under what other... I was just thinking about like what my daughter's doing in the past few days.

She's like, she is making new weird sentences all the time. Like, you know, little ghoulies get on boat and go on water and see Red Bowie and go to Nana's house. Little ghoulies? Where did she pick up? Has she seen the movie? No, not the movie. She's got some little weird guys who are ghoulies. Okay, that makes sense. But yeah, I mean, this is, again, this touches on one of the great things about

being around children is that they are just such a font of wild creativity that grownups typically just don't have as ready access to. Like I've, I'm sure this is a story I've told on the show before, but this was before I became a parent. I went to an improv show. It was like a local improv group and they were doing a kid's puppet show, but it, but it was entirely improv and they would ask the children to give them ideas to then act out and,

And and and so even like seasoned improv group like they were really, you know, they were really rolling with some of these ideas. Like I distinctly remember one little girl saying Batman, the girl as being one of the concepts. Anyway, that's just one example. Obviously, anyone who's been around children for any length of time can think of a hundred more. Yeah, they get they get weird. Yeah.

Did I already mention mine is also right now obsessed with changing diapers on dinosaurs? On dinosaurs? The dinosaurs have diapers and they often have poop that needs to be changed. Well, you know, that's just sensible. Oh, but quickly before we move off of the symbolic understanding thing, Weisberg, the language is clearly the most important type of symbolic skills in human culture.

Language is not the only symbolic skill practiced through pretend play. Another one the author mentions is, quote, reasoning with maps and scale models. That's a type of symbolic representation. You can think of a play space on the floor as really being much like a map, a scale representation of a topography or landscape in miniature on which you can sort of plot routes and act things out. And this is a big part of adult reasoning about how to get around places. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, it makes sense since you consider that often a child's room contains multiple scale models, be they Lego kits that have been assembled or stuffies that are of vehicles. I mean, there are a million different variations of this, obviously. But by having those objects in a space, it kind of turns that space into a kind of map or a miniaturized world. Totally. ♪

College degrees are pricey, but with low tuition and our $2,500 back-to-school scholarship, WGU makes it possible to earn your degree at a price you can afford. Apply today at wgu.edu.

I'm Jason Alexander and I'm Peter Tilden and together on the really no really podcast our mission is to get the true answers to life's baffling questions like why they refuse to make the bathroom door go all the way to the floor we got the answer will space junk block your cell signal the astronaut who almost drowned during a spacewalk gives us the answer we talk with the scientist who figured out if your dog truly loves you and the one bringing back the woolly mammoth plus is

Does Tom Cruise really do his own stunts? His stuntman reveals the answer. And you never know who's going to drop by. Mr. Bryan Cranston is with us today. How are you, too? Hello, my friend. Wayne Knight about Jurassic Park. Wayne Knight, welcome to Really, No Really, sir. Bless you all. Hello, Newman. And you never know when Howie Mandel might just stop by to talk about judging. Really? That's...

It's the opening? Really, no really. Yeah, really. No really. Go to reallynoreally.com. And register to win $500, a guest spot on our podcast, or a limited edition signed Jason bobblehead. It's called Really, No Really, and you can find it on the iHeartRadio app, on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, one more thing before we wrap up part one here is Weisberg's exploration of the link between pretend play and counterfactual reasoning.

So counterfactual reasoning is reasoning based on a premise that you do not accept as current reality. So here's one. If Cheetos were blue instead of orange, what color would your fingertips become after eating them? You know that Cheetos are not actually blue, but you can easily answer this question because you can reason counterfactually. Right. They would be blue. Right. Yeah.

Just making sure we're on the same page, Dick. Got it on the record. Yes. Okay. So, you know, as a comparison, imagine this banana were a phone. How would you use it? It's easy to see playing pretend as really almost exactly the same thing as counterfactual reasoning. You start with a

that is not literal, that is different than how you think the world actually is, and then you act it out. You follow from there. But interestingly, studies have found that children in the so-called high season of pretend play, you know, this period of like three to five years old where they're playing pretend all the time, kids in this age range show a lot of difficulty with counterfactual reasoning and experiments. Some examples cited by Weisberg here...

One is like an experiment where a kid watches a toy mouse go down a little forked slide and then answers questions about it.

So you can imagine one condition is the child watches the mouse go down the fork in one direction, and then the experimenter asks, if the mouse goes down the opposite side of the fork next time, where will it end up? Kids do okay with this question. It's a hypothetical question about a future event, and they've already seen how the slide works in principle, so they do okay.

However, they have a lot more difficulty with almost exactly the same question, but just if it's phrased as a counterfactual instead. So you show them the mouse going down one side of the fork and then you ask them if the mouse had gone down the other way of the fork instead, where would it have ended up? Apparently, kids really struggle with this.

Children at this age also really struggle with counterfactual syllogisms, like the Blue Cheetos thing, reasoning based on a counterfactual premise. So you can say something like, imagine a world where cats bark instead of meowing. In this world, Fluffy is a cat. Does Fluffy bark or meow?

preschoolers struggle with this as well. They seem to have a hard time ignoring their legitimate knowledge about the real world, which is that cats meow, they do not bark. And so the kids want to say fluffy meows because they know that cats meow. I mean, I can see the difficulty because this is kind of like a bedrock understanding of reality, you know? And if you snatch that away and throw

flip it around. Yeah, it takes a minute to recalibrate to that. So it's very interesting that counterfactual reasoning and playing pretend is

us to be nearly the same thing. They're almost exactly the same thing, yet preschoolers tend to excel at one and struggle with the other. Genuine skill at counterfactual reasoning only seems to come online later with some effort and training. So one idea offered in this paper is the idea of implicit versus explicit understanding. So when pretending, children engage in

an implicit or intuitive sense of counterfactual reasoning that's acted out through play in the body. But maybe what they struggle with is

is understanding counterfactual reasoning purely in words, which is why they're having trouble with syllogisms. That's one possibility. It's the explicit versus implicit. But also, interesting thing is that some experiments have shown that you can improve preschoolers' performance on counterfactual syllogisms simply by explaining the counterfactual element as pretend play.

So you can imagine asking maybe a kid struggles with the, you know, the like cats bark in this world. What is Fluffy the cat say? Instead, you could say Fluffy the cat is pretending to be a dog when he is pretending to be a dog. Does he bark or meow? So maybe this kind of thing can can kind of get through more more on the implicit wavelength.

But anyway, some researchers have argued that the adaptive function of pretend to play is exactly this about counterfactual reasoning. It's to prepare children for serious counterfactual reasoning later in life. And I want to emphasize that counterfactual reasoning is not just like highfalutin philosophical thought experiments or, you know, in reality.

It's not just on that level. I mean, we engage in counterfactual reasoning every single day. One function of counterfactual reasoning that is very useful is to learn not only from mistakes made, but from mistakes almost made or from the mistakes of others. So you can think you can like.

Right.

Yeah, that's a great point. Like, who knows? Maybe, you know, you take the boat ride across the river, even though you were thinking about swimming and halfway across, you see some crocodiles and you remember like, oh, I can reason if I had swam instead of riding the boat, that would have been bad. Yeah.

It reminds me, there's a line in, I forget which Cormac McCarthy book, but there's a character pondering all the worse luck their bad luck might have saved them from. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, again, what's less clear is to what extent there is any kind of direct training effects. It seems plausible that pretend play really does train the brain for counterfactual reasoning, but we don't know. But...

interesting thing to study and certainly plausible based on what we do know. Now, I think we're starting to run a little long, so this might be the place that we have to cut part one here. But obviously, there's going to be a lot more to say about pretend to play in subsequent episodes. At least one more we can we can promise you.

Yeah, now I do. I do have a few follow up questions. So before we close out, first of all, where do you stand on air guitar? You being a person who actually plays a guitar? Do you as a grown up engage in air guitar? Do you find yourself playing the air guitar whilst listening to music?

for at least moments, if not extended periods? I don't know what this says about me, but I really know do not play air guitar at all. There's no judgment against it. I'm fully supportive of air guitar behaviors, but I don't find myself doing it. When I listen to music, I just, I dance, but air guitar is not part of the repertoire. How about air drums?

Oh, I do more of that. Interesting. I don't actually play the drums, but I'm more likely to act out playing drums without real drums there. Yeah. Huh. Interesting. Like if In the Air Tonight plays, you're definitely going to go do the... Yeah, yeah. All the fills. The fills in Agata De Vida, the drum solo. I cannot listen to that drum solo without acting it out.

I will catch myself doing air guitar, but then I get very self-conscious because I'm like, I don't know how to play the guitar. What am I doing? I'm just very roughly mimicking things that I've seen before. And then I put my hands in my pocket. Don't let it hold you back. And then my other follow-up question, pair of questions really, or observations involve, again, the banana as a telephone. First of all,

Are kids still doing this? Because we should point out that telephones don't really look like bananas anymore. Like telephone receivers used to have more of a banana shape to them. More and more, I feel like kids are not exposed to those sorts of telephones. They're

seeing smartphones that look more like TV remote controls. That's interesting. Well, you know, in the paper, it was the banana as phone that was often cited, but I was using the example of the remote as phone because that is what happens in our house. Here's the other thing that comes to mind. The banana as phone

Pretend play is funnier when the reach is farther and when the literal object is food.

Yes, because the food technology gap is greater, right? And you were getting into the question of like, okay, how would this work if it were a phone? Like that question is more ridiculous with the banana. How would the banana possibly function as a fully grown telecommunication device? How do I put this on speaker? All right, that's all I got. Those are the only follow-up questions. Okay.

All right. Well, folks, we're going to have to cut part one there, but we will be back with more about pretend to play on Thursday. That's right. Bring your imaginary friend and we'll have a good old time.

All right. In the meantime, we're just going to remind you, stuff to blow your mind, primarily a science and culture podcast on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Those are the core episode publication dates. On Fridays, we set aside most serious concerns to just talk about a weird film on Weird House Cinema. On Wednesdays, we bust out a short forum episode. And yeah, that's generally how it works. If you're on Instagram, follow us at stbympodcast.

Huge thanks, as always, to our excellent audio producer, JJ Posway. If you would like to get in touch with us with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest a topic for the future, or just to say hello, you can email us at contact at stufftoblowyourmind.com. Stuff to Blow Your Mind is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app. Apple Podcasts are wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

College degrees are pricey, but with low tuition and our $2,500 back-to-school scholarship, WGU makes it possible to earn your degree at a price you can afford. Apply today at wgu.edu.

I'm Jason Alexander. And I'm Peter Tilden. And together, our mission on the Really Know Really podcast is to get the true answers to life's baffling questions like why the bathroom door doesn't go all the way to the floor, what's in the museum of failure, and does your dog truly love you? We have the answer. Go to reallyknowreally.com and register to win $500, a guest spot on our podcast, or a limited edition signed Jason bobblehead. The Really Know Really podcast. Follow us on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.