Talk:Sibling deidentification

Research deidentification
The more important use of this page would be for research deidentification, which is the concept of taking data associated with a particular person and sharing it in such a way that the data can be used by researchers but not by anyone who wanted to identify the individuals from whom the data came. Here is an example of a paper which discusses this concept:  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   17:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1) "RESEARCH DEIDENTIFICATION": this definition, (see above) is not a "more imortant" use of the page, it's simply a different one. [User: Bluerasberry] This concern is easily solved by disambiguation of multiple pages with the same name, not changing this page. You should make a different page for the methodological/ethical concern of preserving the anonymity of research subjects by "deidentifying" the data (scrubbing personal info). THIS page is about a key psychological process in the identity formation of people with siblings. {edit: your definition already has a page actually, just add disambiguation}

2) UNCONSCIOUS PROCESS: PROPOSED CHANGE: REMOVE THE WORD "INTENTIONALLY". No research supports deidentification as an intentional process (or even a conscious one). Take this logical example, since it would be impossible to cite evidence of an argument that researcher's don't make. Take for example, an older brother whose parents praise his success in baseball, reinforcing the part of his identity that is "I'm a baseball player". The second son becomes a basketball player. As a result there is no competition for parental baseball praise, and the second son receives basketball praise, reinforcing the part of his identity that is "I'm am basketball player" AND the part of his identity that is "I am different from my brother". Like so many of the causes of human behavior and identity formation, some or all of the cognitive processes that combine to cause the outcome (like both the decision to play basketball, AND the resulting process of deidentification) may be unconscious processes, unknown to the person whose cognition and outcomes they affect. Cognitive psychology is replete with research findings, across many different research areas, demonstrating people are rarely, if ever, fully aware of the causes of their own behavior, even if they confabulate reasons that explain it. For one of many examples of unconscious processes causing behavior, all of the cognitive biases that affect people's decision-making are unconscious (by definition), like the [|Wason 4-card selection task] (Wason, 1968) in which researcher's can predict that most people (90%) can't solve it as a generic logic problem using rules that establish certain numbers match certain colors (like even must be red), but the vast majority solve the same problem easily and quickly when presented in a social context, such as people's ages (rather than generic numbers) matched by use of a social rule to a behavior like buying beer versus soda (rather than generic colors). This finding makes it clear that the explanation for people's correct choices in the second condition (at least for the 90% of people that can't deduce it as a pure logic problem) is the presentation of the problem in a social context where the matching rule is based on violation of a social rule (age cards under 21 matching beer cards) or not violating a social rule (age cards under 21 matching soda). Specifically, the reason behind their reasoning is that the context engages a very fast, accurate, and efficient heuristic process in the brain, which humans evolved (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992) to police social rules. Are people aware of this reason? Did they intentionally think, "Ok brain, engage your social-rule-policing heuristic now and notify me of the solution when processing is complete"?. Of course not, we know that intuitively, but this has also been confirmed by experimental research. Wason & Evans (1975) asked subject to state the rationale for their correct solution, and subjects rationalized their reasoning process after the fact, by confabulating all sorts of explanations, none of which were correct (that they unconsciously used a social rule policing heuristic), except possibly "I just kind of knew" (which is actually a fairly accurate representation of how heuristics work. Heuristic are just one of countless examples of how humans usually are not fully aware of why they do what they do. Applying this to our deidentification example, did the younger brother intentionally decide to play basketball, to reduce competition by finding a niche? Quite possibly, but maybe he "just knew it". Regardless, it matters not because that choice is not deidentification, its simply the niche filling of younger sibling predicted by the resource dilution model. Because the younger bother found is basketball niche, he will deidentify from his brother, the process of beginning to perceive himself as different from his baseball playing brother at least in this dimension of his identity, his role identity in the context of his athletic role. Is it likely he was conscious of the process driving those changing self-perceptions? No. Is it likely that he chose basketball because he intentionally sought to change identity? That his rational for basketball was, if a play this sport I can differentiate my self-concept more from my sibling than it now, so it includes includes "I am different from my brother in the roles we fill in sports? Absolutely not. It's highly doubtful the words identity or self concept eve entered him mind, meaning that triggering a deidentification process was not intentional. That is still irrelevant bc we know that he did know consciously manage the process of doing that cognitively, and THAT is what the deidentification process is, doing it cognitively.       VirtualSwayy (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, Zaathras (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)