Parents generally have a strong instinct to try to make things easier for their kids than they were for themselves growing up. We know the food is hot, so we blow on the kid's food or let it cool before giving it to them. We know the toy will break if it's repeatedly thrown down the stairs, so we impose a rule that "we don't do that in our house". We know X, Y, or Z, so we sit down with them and explain it to them.
I don't think that these explanations and rules have no place (I don't want a child learning what heat is by falling onto a wood-burning stove!), but we need to recognize that it's a strictly inferior way of learning something when compared to experience. And as you point out, unstructured play is where kids get that experience in a low-stakes environment.
Play serves a valuable purpose, but as soon as parents get involved to try to assist the purpose evaporates.
I've had this instinct whenever my kids are on the jungle gym to say, "slow down!" "That's too high!" etc. but I usually catch myself and think, "if they fall is it a cry or a hospital visit?"
It occurred to me at that moment that this kind of hovering and scolding teaches children to externalize the responsibility of understanding their environment and their place within it. They will literally never learn the lessons this father wants to impart because he will always be there to act for them, until the children's brains lose the plasticity necessary to properly internalize those things. Perhaps they will always struggle with a psychological complex they can never fully understand.
I know this because I had a doting mother who always defined my priorities for me. I learned to nearly fully externalize the maintenance of those priorities to her expectations (which were transitively pinned to those of the formal academic and "professional" systems).
Because of this I'm currently going through something of an existential crisis -- I really don't know what I want to do. My career has been unfulfilling and trying to develop lasting hobbies and interests have not borne out the deep kinds of satisfaction others seem to be able to achieve. I still hold out hope I can find something that "gets the ball rolling" but learning patience while watching myself continue to orient myself toward goals that have definitive, quantifiable, socially-acceptable ends has been unsettling. I want to feel comfortable in my day-to-day, or at least confident that the processes I enact encourage the development of a more whole being.
A father or mother admonishing their kids to behave in public is not really anything new either.
People are terrified of saying anything because of the likely reaction of the kids' parents. The "it takes a village" mindset is gone. If someone's kid runs into you and you so much as say "excuse me" to them, you risk the parents getting in your face, holding up their cellphone camera, yelling "You don't talk to my kids. Go mind your damn business, Karen!" Not worth it--so bad behavior in public goes uncorrected.
Even when kids aren't involved, people's reaction more and more to public criticism/correction is to get belligerent and tell you to mind your business.
I was at a park concert once, the kind where everyone is sitting, and there was a large family in front of me. One of the kids (around 12 I would guess, old enough in any case) kept standing up, roaming around, and generally blocking the view of the people behind him, even though he wasn't watching the show (he was literally munching on snacks and facing back in the crowd). I wouldn't have cared if he was excited, dancing, enjoying the show, but that was just not the case.
I asked him if he could sit down so I could see. His dad immediately got in my face and demanded that I apologize to his son. He didn't leave until the police got involved.
But fundamentally, keeping control Iverson a kid is on parent and I don't think about bumping kids enough to form a sentence. I just expect parents to tell them cause it is their job and in this story, the parent in fact intervened.
You mention this happened on a sidewalk. Cars drive next to sidewalks. The American culture of cars is the number one cause of anxiety in my life as a parent to young children. I do not want to feel this anxiety, I do not like how it makes me react towards my children, who just want to play and have fun and explore the world and try to understand the it. But cars exist. And today they are a much bigger problem than they were when I was their age, for a whole variety of reasons that are very well understood and articulated by people far more intelligent and capable than I am. And my children are, practically every single day, within 4-6 feet of cars that are a) much larger than they have any right to be, and b) driving much faster than they have any reason to, to the point that if they are careless about where they are, or what they are doing, they run a very serious risk of being killed.
That is why I sometimes respond to my children the way that I do, in line with what you've observed here. I don't like it, either, but it is what it is.
Now, I go out of my way to get my kids into big, wide, safe open spaces on a daily basis, and I will deliberately ignore them (within reason -- I keep tabs on where they are, etc.) so that they can go off and find interesting ways to play, hurt themselves, whatever. But I still have to engage with the automobile problem multiple times almost every single day of our lives.
This is 99% of it (other 1% is fear of other parents scolding you). There's a beach bike path near us with only one street crossing in 5 miles. My 6 and 7 year old are free to explore the whole thing unattended provided they avoid that crossing. It has playgrounds and all kinds of stuff they can stop their bikes at.
But I won't let them cross the street we live on because none of these drivers are thinking about pedestrians and even if they were I doubt any of the lifted trucks could even see a 4ft tall kid.
I never had nightmares at all until I had kids. Now nightmares consist of cars, Amazon trucks, parking lots and the occasional lake or pool drowning.
Anyway, without full context of what was going on in that family's life you saw, I'm not sure if anyone is able to make a fair judgement on what was more considerate, even handed, or whatever. Five minutes before you saw them they could have almost been hit by a car or something.
IMO situations that require yelling should be extremely rare, but anything involving death or getting maimed is a definite candidate.
Theoretical explanation is not effective. Letting them experience it first hand might be too destructive, because of the nature of the addiction.
Can any parent chime in what worked and what didn't?
/s
In all reality the most effective drug and vice talks I ever got were in High School.
The first was from our school's substance counselor who was a former crack addict, and mother of one of our fellow students. She just told her story, and talked about all the horrible shit she saw, but never once told us drug war lies.
The other was from my English teacher a few weeks before graduation. The gist of it was: "there's nothing I can say that will stop you from experimenting with drugs. A little bit of drugs probably won't ruin your lives, and might be fun, but pay attention to the people who don't moderate, and the people who do. The results speak for themselves."
What it came down to was it was the two people that were honest with us who got heard. Some DARE cop lecturing us from a DEA handout about how marijuana addiction would ruin our lives didn't work, because kids aren't stupid, and they know BS when they hear it.
Coke wasn't a big deal as an occasional party drug, but now we hear stories of tainted coke and overdosing. Gotta teach kids about testing all their drugs now.
Calm down, Satan.
In my experience there is nothing what would stop a kid from doing the stupid things. What somewhat mattered is trying to explaing, honestly, the consequences. Sadly, this doesn't work good enough, but sometimes it helps when instead of panicking they panic but remember what to do in the case of emergency.
Not sure how feasible it is, but I think with all the photo and video data we now have on hand what sort of longitudinal studies we can produce from imagery alone with the occasional detail and context self professed by the individuals involved.
> where these bad choices
drugs = bad choice, always? There can be good sides too.
there are only two options: kids learn about drugs by others telling them about it, or they learn by trying them. the latter is dangerous, so the former is the only option. everything else is the environment.
my parents never talked to me about drugs or alcohol. we did talk about it in school though. i simply grew up in a family where alcohol or drugs did not exist, in an environment where kids didn't have easy access to alcohol and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff. so noone did drugs or got drunk at school. maybe a few kids were drinking outside of school but it was never a big thing. i remember a classmate from middleschool saying that he refused to get cigarettes or beer for his dad because it's unhealthy. that's the kind of environment i grew up in. tell me how does that make me drug-naive and put me at risk? later as a student many of my peers frequently drank alcohol with meals, etc, i never did, and was never interested, because that's how i grew up.
of course if that is not your environment then you have to be more proactive about making sure your kids are aware of the dangers, but in general, what has the most value is the example you give as parents. if you drink, you will have a much harder time to convince your kids to not drink.
and for drugs it is my understanding that those who have experience with alcohol are more likely to try harder drugs too. (even just a small percentage) but more important the reverse, those that do not drink alcohol also are unlikely to try harder drugs. my interpretation of that is that if i want my kids to avoid drugs i can do that by not drinking alcohol and showing them that they need not join their peers when they drink.
this is not to say that anyone drinking is putting their kids at risk, but that not drinking is very helpful to reduce that risk.
The largest assumption that seems to be behind your position is that society should not have recreational drugs. Is this correct? I disagree, I think recreational drugs used appropriately can improve life. Obviously if abused they may wreck it.
> there are only two options: kids learn about drugs by others telling them about it, or they learn by trying them. the latter is dangerous, so the former is the only option. everything else is the environment.
Without being trite, everything is dangerous in degree. A famous UK government drug researcher published a paper, details here https://www.drugscience.org.uk/societys-inconsistent-moral-j... that compared the risks of horseriding with MDMA and found that MDMA was safer (he was sacked for this).
> my parents never talked to me about drugs or alcohol. we did talk about it in school though. i simply grew up in a family where alcohol or drugs did not exist, in an environment where kids didn't have easy access to alcohol
I think we have had very different backgrounds. For a large part of my life we were living in council estates under a lot of stress. A lot. There's a lot of drinking and smoking from the other people there because they were self-medicating against the stress. I think there's a link between heroin use and Vietnam war that is well known in the US? It could be the biggest cause of drug use is stress; people just trying to cope.
> and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff.
I'm uncomfortable because you're trying to make up other people's minds for them. I think that's an infringement on their right to independent thought – does that make sense?
> that's the kind of environment i grew up in. tell me how does that make me drug-naive and put me at risk?
It doesn't automatically do so, and in fact I may be completely wrong in assuming it can do, but at some point if some people have the opportunity to take harder drugs than alcohol, they will. For example, me. And I don't regret it, and having it delayed from my childhood into adulthood was probably a damn good thing – I'm less impulsive and more able to control the risks.
> of course if that is not your environment then you have to be more proactive about making sure your kids are aware of the dangers,
And benefits? Do you allow there could be benefits to recreational drugs used appropriately and in moderation?
> but in general, what has the most value is the example you give as parents. if you drink, you will have a much harder time to convince your kids to not drink.
Completely agree.
> and for drugs it is my understanding that those who have experience with alcohol are more likely to try harder drugs too. (even just a small percentage) but more important the reverse, those that do not drink alcohol also are unlikely to try harder drugs. my interpretation of that is that if i want my kids to avoid drugs i can do that by not drinking alcohol and showing them that they need not join their peers when they drink.
These links agree with you
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-alcohol-a-gatew... https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/alcohol-abuse/alcohol-gat... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22712674/
But they also say "Addiction is a complex disease – prior use of alcohol is simply another risk factor among many, and there is no single explanation for why someone becomes addicted. The interrelationships between the gateway drugs (tobacco, alcohol and cannabis) are complex"
If you grew up in a different environment, under a lot more stress than it sounds you suffered, it may be the stress that is triggering use of alcohol and any other drugs you can lay your hands on. Found the heroine/Vietnam war link https://jamesclear.com/heroin-habits The soldiers got addicted due to stress and other factors, unexpectedly when they returned home a lot of them just stopped using it because the stress was, presumably "In other words, approximately nine out of ten soldiers who used heroin in Vietnam eliminated their addiction nearly overnight"
> this is not to say that anyone drinking is putting their kids at risk, but that not drinking is very helpful to reduce that risk.
Agreed.
I'm not actually pro drugs, if there's one drug I would really like to make illegal it's cigarettes, and I would very, very much like to see the end of all and any advertising of alcohol.
Hope you find this interesting
i don't have the time to write a detailed replay right now, but i hope to do so later. you are welcome to contact me at the address in my profile in case i get distracted and forget.
not necessarily. as alcohol was/is still very common where i grew up, it doesn't mean that the mere availability is a problem in itself. it was more the attitude about it. but i also suspect that most kids there still had mostly intact families and reasonable role models. all of which can be significant risk factors when missing. effectively the thing is that being a good role model as a parent is something i can influence. maybe with a healthy family responsible use is fine, but for a stressed single parent, the same use becomes a problem, and avoiding drugs or alcohol becomes important to counter the other negative effects from the childrens experience. it's relative, how much risk do we see, and how much do we as parents need to do to reduce that risk.
compared the risks of horseriding with MDMA and found that MDMA was safer
safer for whom? the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences. it's like flying. on average flying is safe. but if something happens it is usually fatal, therefore we need very strict rules on flight safety. if drug use goes out of hand, the consequences can affect a lot of people. horseriding just doesn't go out of hand. like skiing or some other sports. you just can hurt yourself, that's all.
It could be the biggest cause of drug use is stress; people just trying to cope.
absolutely. i think stress is a huge risk factor. and that's where avoiding drugs and alcohol completely brings its benefits. i am in a stressful situation now, and i find my ways to cope, but because i grew up without alcohol i am not even tempted to try that.
> and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff.
I'm uncomfortable because you're trying to make up other people's minds for them.
i want to give kids good rolemodels, and show them that drugs or alcohol are not needed to have a good time. i am not making up their mind, but i am giving them additional information so that they can make up their own mind.
if as a society we want to reduce the number of people affected by alcohol or drug abuse, we need to educate our children to that effect. that's the schools job. to educate according to social consensus. when there is a tendency for abuse to grow if unchecked, then education needs to counteract that. more so if we want to reduce it. of course doing this right also requires relying on facts and true statistics and not allow hardliners to push their agenda by fearmongering and exaggerating the actual damage.
Do you allow there could be benefits to recreational drugs used appropriately and in moderation?
i do, but i still believe the risks outweigh the benefits. unlike horseriding where the benefits outweigh the risks, even though statistically there is a higher risk of injury.
approximately nine out of ten soldiers who used heroin in Vietnam eliminated their addiction nearly overnight
i think the key here is that it is very clear what causes the stress, and that being back home that stressfactor is gone and will never come back with 100% certainty.
most of us do not get this certainty. stressfactors reduce, but they never completely disappear, and they may come back any time. people vow to give up drinking, it works for a while, then something happens, and they are back. veterans know that they are done for good, and that they will never have to make that experience again.
if there's one drug I would really like to make illegal it's cigarettes, and I would very, very much like to see the end of all and any advertising of alcohol.
i am fully with you on that. i am also very happy to see that in the past decades we have made progress in creating a smoke free experience in most public indoor areas. and that i see a lot less smoking in public compared to a few decades ago.
>> The largest assumption that seems to be behind your position is that society should not have recreational drugs. Is this correct?
> not necessarily. as alcohol was/is still very common where i grew up, it doesn't mean that the mere availability is a problem in itself. it was more the attitude about it.
So if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used? Assuming good role models, etc. it's fine if you say no, we'll disagree but I will at least understand your position and I will respect it.
> but for a stressed single parent,
An aside, I assure you a parent doesn't have to be single to be stressed, in fact it can be more dangerous to have two stressed parents.
>> compared the risks of horseriding with MDMA and found that MDMA was safer
> safer for whom?
Well, for the user of the drug or the equine.
> the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences.
The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
> the consequences can affect a lot of people. horseriding just doesn't go out of hand, or become addictive. like skiing or some other sports. you just can hurt yourself, that's all.
With respect I don't think that is anywhere close to reflecting what the paper said:
"The dangers of equasy were revealed to me as a result of a recent clinical referral of a woman in her early 30’s who had suffered permanent brain damage as a result of equasy-induced brain damage. She had undergone severe personality change that made her more irritable and impulsive, with anxiety and loss of the ability to experience pleasure. There was also a degree of hypofrontality and behavioural disinhibition that had lead to many bad decisions in relationships with poor choice of partners and an unwanted pregnancy. She is unable to work and is unlikely ever to do so again [my emphasis], so the social costs of her brain damage are also very high."
further
"I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity. The data are quite startling – people die and are permanently damaged from falling – with neck and spine fracture leading to permanent spinal injury. Head injury is four times more com- mon though often less obvious and is the usual cause of death. In the USA, approximately 11,500 cases of traumatic head injury a year are due to riding (Thomas, et al., 2006), and we can presume a proportionate number in the UK."
I also knew a girl many years ago who was a rider, whose horse spooked, reared up and fell backwards onto her, breaking her back. Fortunately this wasn't a wheelchair-forever case, but she was off work for months and would have back problems for the rest of her life.
I know many more eg. MDMA users than horseriders, and I've never seen any injury, never mind something so severe as this.
If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately.
> absolutely. i think stress is a huge risk factor. and that's where avoiding drugs and alcohol completely brings its benefits. i am in a stressful situation now, and i find my ways to cope, but because i grew up without alcohol and never tried it before i am not at all tempted to try it now.
That is your decision and it is therefore the correct decision for you, but but do you think it is the correct decision for everybody? If you did, it's possible we might have less adverse outcomes, but you would also take away the ability to make choices for themselves, where it doesn't risk hurting other people. It's not a society want to be in. Also what is right for you may not be workable for others.
> the same goes for any potentially addictive behavior like gambling. but since it was mentioned in the initial question, i'd like to talk about phone/internet addiction a bit...but i don't know what they will do when they get old enough and are able to spend their own money.
I honestly don't know. It's possible giving them a small allowance to buy online stuff might help them manage things, or it might feed a possible addiction. Perhaps you can ask around on parents forums?
>>> and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff.
>> I'm uncomfortable because you're trying to make up other people's minds for them.
> i want to give kids good rolemodels, and show them that drugs or alcohol are not needed to have a good time.
That may be true for you but are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people? Because you certainly don't need them to have a good time, but they can really bloody help! Please also consider that not only people differ, but situations differ and that needs to be accounted for. I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally. What an option for you isn't necessarily optional for other people.
> if as a society we want to reduce the number of people affected by alcohol or drug abuse, we need to educate our children to that effect. that's the schools job. to educate according to social consensus.
But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else? That's what I'm trying to understand, it's the absolute crux of why we are discussing this.
> ... also requires relying on facts and true statistics and not allow hardliners to push their agenda by fearmongering and exaggerating the actual damage.
And this is where I have a problem, too many people (not just kids) will simply not recognise the harm drugs do. If you tell them they're not inevitably dangerous, all they hear is that they're safe. Not only that, we have a societal problem that will export the external costs of drugs (specifically alcohol and cigarettes) onto society at the cost of making individual firms richer.
> also, you wouldn't jump on a horse or do any other risky sport without proper training. what would be comparable training for alcohol and drug use if not education in school?
Agreed, but parents must have some responsibility, I think we both agree with that.
>> Do you allow there could be benefits to recreational drugs used appropriately and in moderation?
> i do, but i still believe the risks outweigh the benefits. unlike horseriding where the benefits outweigh the risks, even though statistically there is a higher risk of injury.
Given what the equasy paper says...
Acute harm to person [MDMA] +1 per 10000 episodes [horse riding] ++1 per 350 episodes
> most of us do not get this certainty. stressfactors reduce, but they never completely disappear, and they may come back any time. people vow to give up drinking, it works for a while, then something happens, and they are back. veterans know that they are done for good, and that they will never have to make that experience again.
agreed, and we both agree ciggies and booze should be treated less indulgently by society.
i am not sure. if there is evidence that the risks are at least as low as those of alcohol, maybe. but, even for alcohol i consider the risks to high still. drunk driving, domestic violence and many other things are potentially caused by drugs or alcohol, and reducing these requires reducing the use of alcohol or drugs. however banning them is not effective, and so i see other measures such as better education as important to address those problems.
> the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences.
The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately.
but that's the big difference. horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect, drug and alcohol use almost always do. my focus in on the latter. i don't care what someone does to themselves, but i do care how it affects others.
your personal freedom ends where it starts to restrict my freedom. if my partner comes home drunk and starts beating me or the kids, and if banning alcohol is the only way to stop that, then by all means, i'd rather ban alcohol than give you the freedom to drink. (that's assuming that such a ban would work, which is questionable in itself)
the risks from drug use have to be minimized. but i also see the need to make some drugs legal in order to better control the quality and steer people away from bad quality drugs that are even worse.
if it was possible, i'd rather eliminate drugs and alcohol (and smoking) completely. since that is not possible i'll settle for whatever solution has the least negative effects on society (not on the individual).
do you think [avoiding alcohol] is the correct decision for everybody?
alcohol and stress do not mix. so yes. if you are stressed (severely and continuously), you should avoid alcohol as a way to seek relief. but the point for me is that never having consumed alcohol is what is protecting me from trying it to relieve stress now. that's not a decision i made, but something i could only learn from my parents, and i have to thank them for that.
I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally
i don't want to try to diagnose, or propose how you should deal with your problems, but i wish that there would be more resources available to you than just self-medicating with drugs or alcohol. i do accept that likely there aren't any other options for you though, so i understand your choice here. but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people?
project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely. but enforce only when it actually (provably) helps to reduce harm on society.
the problem here generally is that many people want to code their preferred attitude into law, when in many cases that is not useful. instead they should share and teach (without pressure), but allow everyone to make their own choices.
But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else?
social consensus should be whatever has the most benefit and the least harm for society as a whole.
What I'm saying is that as a society we either forbid things or make them legal then go bloody mental in abusing them. My currently rather liberal position on drugs will have to contend with this kind of stupidity if we do legalise.
exactly, that's a problem we are facing. the only way out is better education. i think we are pretty much in agreement here.
What are the benefits of horseriding, if exercise then there are other safer ways of getting that. If it's the responsibility of looking after an animal, get a cat or a dog (and that option is much more widely available than owning a horse – we could never have afforded it). What are those benefits?
as i mentioned before, i am not at all concerned about the risks to the individual partaking in an activity of their choice. i am only concerned about risks to others. that makes horseriding almost risk free. in fact, since my wife was always afraid of dogs due to a childhood incident, to her, dogs are more dangerous than horses. dogs can bite, cats can scratch, horses can throw you off or kick you. etc. different animals have different temperaments, and which animal or activity is right for someone is very individual. you can easily construct a scenario where horseriding is simply the most practical choice, compared to other options a person has available. horseriding is just one of many options on a large spectrum, and does not even stand out in risk for the individual as there are other even riskier activities.
as an aside
"I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity"
i am surprised that people are surprised. i haven't learned riding, but i have rode on a horse once or twice. you are so high up and horses are so strong that to me the potential for injuries is no surprise at all.
>> if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used?
> i am not sure. if there is evidence that the risks are at least as low as those of alcohol, maybe. but, even for alcohol i consider the risks to high still.
You might be surprised that alcohol is not a low-risk drug by some measures. I certainly don't consider it to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_harm_assessment_...
Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here. I would tend to agree with that, given my limited experiences with LSD, and fairly long experience with MDMA. Mind, any prat can abuse any drug.
> however banning them is not effective, and so i see other measures such as better education as important to address those problems.
I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work; I want them to be considered for legalisation based on relative harm. Again, see the above link.
>> The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
> but that's the big difference. horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect, drug and alcohol use almost always do. my focus in on the latter. i don't care what someone does to themselves, but i do care how it affects others.
First up I completely agree with you "i don't care what someone does to themselves" and "your personal freedom ends where it starts to restrict my freedom" but where I can't find agreement at all is "horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect". The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society and that is the ripple. Motorcycle accidents can be horrible even when they don't kill, and they do. Many other things. I'm afraid we may have to remain apart on this.
> if my partner comes home drunk and starts beating me or the kids, and if banning alcohol is the only way to stop that, then by all means, i'd rather ban alcohol
I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level ("touch the booze again, Fred, and you go to prison"), but that might work. I'd also like to add from experience that violence without alcohol is very doable. And ditto the converse.
> alcohol and stress do not mix.
Alcohol for some can be a very good stress reliever for short-term stress. Not me though, but certainly some.
> so yes. if you are stressed (severely and continuously), you should avoid alcohol as a way to seek relief.
Agreed, but some people don't have that option.
> I have a delightful range of ...
> i don't want to try to diagnose, or propose how you should deal with your problems, but i wish that there would be more resources available to you than just self-medicating with drugs or alcohol.
One takes one's crutches where one can find them, the world isn't perfect. And frankly, I did just plain enjoy them when things weren't so crap.
> but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs, you might be surprised to hear.
> project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely.
I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad – well, that's my opinion anyway!
> but enforce only when it actually (provably) helps to reduce harm on society...social consensus should be whatever has the most benefit and the least harm for society as a whole.
Agreed.
> exactly, that's a problem we are facing. the only way out is better education. i think we are pretty much in agreement here.
snap
> as i mentioned before, i am not at all concerned about the risks to the individual partaking in an activity of their choice. i am only concerned about risks to others. that makes horseriding almost risk free. ... and does not even stand out in risk for the individual as there are other even riskier activities.
Again, we're going to have to remain separate on this. The damage caused by MDMA is statistically very low, and could be greatly reduced almost to nothing by education and quality controls. It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does. Well that's my impression. And either way, that's your position and I respect it, and maybe it's me seeing it through the wrong end of the telescope.
I'm very happy with this discussion, and I really want to thank you for taking the time and giving me a thoughtful and measured response from the other side. That is what I really want from HN, and don't often get it in this area! That really was excellent and the world feels a tiny bit saner now.
i am aware of that. i am using alcohol simply as a baseline. any other substance must not pose any higher risk. ideally less even.
Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here
i was not aware of that, but i guess the realization of this is why more and more places are considering making such drugs legal.
I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work
i was mainly talking about alcohol here. since alcohol is very easy to make, all that banning gets you is moonshine.
The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society
i disagree with that. sure, it costs insurance, and taxes, but noone else got hurt. if as a society we can't bear that cost then we'd have to ban almost all outdoor activities because they all carry some risk of injury. the result would be a very oppressive society. the cost that i worry about is the personal tragedy that results from being an innocent victim. horseriding does not cause bystanders to get hurt. motorcycles rarely do, but drugs and alcohol do, as do cars and guns (and gambling).
I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level
that won't work simply because by the time the relevant institutions to make that judgement are able to intervene the damage is already done. we need solutions that prevent the abuse from the beginning. only education and restricting access for anyone can do that.
> but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs
neither would i. but the alternative is to increase investment into education and healthcare ten-fold or more even. which is something i would absolutely support and prefer over allowing the use of drugs for self-medication. but that is much harder to achive. i am fighting for that though, whereas i am not fighting for drugs to be legalized. i merely allow that to happen by not fighting against it either.
> project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely.
I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad
well this is another point where we are going disagree, which is fine. basically i believe that using substances to alter your state of mind is a bad idea and should only be done under medical supervision and when necessary. (but again, i don't want to make a law out of this, unless it is necessary to protect innocent victims). but this is a whole topic of its own that i am not quite ready to argue here because i am not familiar enough with the details.
It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does.
i am more lenient on some activities because they are supported by the current consensus in society. if it were up to me, i'd eliminate any alcohol, smoking, gambling, private cars and guns from this planet. because they are all dangerous to bystanders and there are better ways to handle the problems they solve.
ultimately, no matter what choice we make, what matters is that as a society we will only make progress if we find consensus on the major issues that we face today. because only through consensus are we able to change direction if we find that some choice was a bad idea.
we are struggling with a lot of issues because we waste energy on fighting each other instead of looking forward.
A big portion of people is going to get addicted anyways. The America has a far higher amount of addicts of all drugs and alcohol compared to the Netherlands. That is mostly policy and some cultural aspects.
- Help them engage in constructive risk taking behavior. Sports are a common example, and there's plenty of research showing that they reduce harmful behavior. Teens, specifically males explore risky behavior. They have these new magnificent bodies and they want to test their limits.
- Be present, available and engaged with them. Some of the time, they'll want you out of their face. That's fine, but try and keep routines like family meals, and talk to them, if they're willing.
- Try to maintain the family. Sometimes a divorce/separation is the right thing, but for the kids, most of the time, keeping the family together in a dual-parent family is very important.
I can't speak to device addiction, but I from ages 4-12, we raised our child in a major US city. In that environment, one comes across the direct results of drug addiction occasionally.
While we do talk about addiction and related things, but ultimately it's his experiences that shape his views more than words from dad. One of those was taking a trip to the park for a play dare and being late because we stopped to check on (and call 911 for) a man along the way who was passed out with a needle still stuck in his arm.
Just kidding. I was an addict just like almost all other classmates of mine. I'm currently curing my myopia which is 4+ diopters in one eye thanks to using my iPhone 5 cms away my eyes, laying in bed countless nights. I was ~155 IQ (can't remember because of poor memory), now down to 150. My memory was the best I know among people, I used to never forget anything which I can classify as 'timelessly relevant info', so I would remember everything in a science book I read once three years ago (but not the yesterday's lunch). People would frequently comment about my memory and comprehension. Not so much, I wasn't able to remember things from the textbook the teacher is going to ask in late high school. Now my brain is still foggy, but I'm recovering. I'm very unfit, confirmed by a doctor, again recovering from that. I was in %0.5 in my country's university exam alhamdulillah, and I wonder how would it be if I have ever stopped looking at my phone and actually studied.
After many years, what saved me was that I made some custom software that can block my iPhone all by myself, using the Odyseus' trick [1], using your present self's willpower on your future self[2]. Because my parents refused to put a password for Screen Time and said that good ol' phrase: "Can't you stop yourself? Just stop looking it, it's that easy!"
I firmly believe no one person can fight trillion dollar corporations spending tens of millions of man-hours reverse engineering biological reward circuits in your brain. Everyone I see around me is as addicted as their rest of lives allows them to be, except grandpas who still have those dumb phones. I saw the transformation of my beloved relatives after they got their first smartphone, for the worse. They're not the same person anymore.
My life goal for this world is to put and end to this shit. I'll inshaAllah sell that phone that is restricted, make that Linux distro, browser, applications and all things that restricts you from harming your wellbeing and wasting your life, all while being fully functional for things one really need (think messaging, finance apps, government service websites etc.). Thankfully Transformer models came just in time.
Human brains are not designed nor meant to be able to handle current smartphone technology, the current smartphone technology is designed to exploit human brain for profit.
See the entire catalogue of research at: https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/
1: https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Odysseus-and-the-S...
I also like to protect my shit from harm. Kids can be quite destructive in their play.
Another way to phrase this:
Your job as a parent is to expose your children to the maximum amount of love that is healthy and the maximum amount of pain that is healthy.
Too little or too much of either is possible and damaging.
For many parents, the toy is expensive enough that it warrants a rule (like the stove.)
I got lots of warnings from lots of people. Don't let her out or she'll cry all the time to go out. Keep her away from the door or she'll run out and you won't see her again. It sounded very difficult.
However I didn't follow this advice and let my cat out in my backyard. And I found out that people were right and she does cry to go out all the time.
At the start. So I ignored her. I didn't even tell her to be quiet. I let her whine and cry as much as she wanted. She was 100% fine and had everything she needed except the ability to go outside.
She started to scratch the screen to voice her displeasure. I'm the boss and so she lost screen door privileges. She tried to negotiate but failed horribly because, again, I am the boss. She is a cat. The next weekend she got screen door privileges back and scratched the screen on day 2. She lost them again because I'm the boss and I don't want her to scratch my screen. When she got her screen privileges back again she never scratched the screen again.
The door thing, same. She snuck out once. Then I started locking her in a safe room with everything she needed. It's still her room to this day and she can trash it as much as she wants, just like she could as a kitten. That's the only room she can do that and seems to understand that. She doesn't really come near the door if I'm leaving now, and if she's close she will not try sneaking out.
She just turned two this past month, and while she was a nightmare as a kitten, she is a complete angel now.
I'm not totally perfect and for example I can't keep her off my desk if it's in the sitting position. So I've learned to deal with it. If I don't want her on my desk I need to either keep her out of my office or use it standing. I can't seem to win this battle and I tried everything. I'll say that not buying a kid a new iPad seems like a much easier thing to do.
I'm sure children are a lot different but the "I can't teach children philosophy" excuse sounds pretty weak. I don't understand how children can have that much power over an adult.
They are.
Beating them into submission because you are the boss and they are just a child is not a long term solution.
They are a lot more complex than cats.
> I don't understand how children can have that much power over an adult.
Oh I can easily just lock my son in his room, make him dance to get fed, anything really. It'd be abuse and wouldn't result in him growing into a well rounded child and adult and he'd hate me, but I could force him to behave in basic ways like you're describing.
I set ground rules and gave her safe ways to be upset. If she misbehaved she lost privileges she enjoys.
I never neglected her if that's what you're trying to get at. That's a pretty low-blow to accuse me of based on what I wrote. Be better.
Obviously locking children in rooms isn't right. How about this, instead of locking kids in a room, you could try making a toy room and locking them OUT if they're misbehaving. Is that inhumane torture? That's basically what I did with my cat.
> I never neglected her if that's what you're trying to get at.
If you did that to a child it would be neglect, that is the point. Children aren't cats.
It is more complex with a child. It's easier when they're a baby, but increasingly more subtle as they get older. Nobody is saying you can't take things away from them or set boundaries, but you're talking about very simple things that may work with very young children but aren't enough as they get older.
"Do as I say because I am the boss" is just not good enough. Maybe you'll get compliance but that's not enough if you want a healthy relationship with your child as they grow.
When did I make that argument?
For the record, I don't believe you should tell children that. I don't understand the difficulty in telling them "The iPad broke and you are not getting another one because you can't take care of it properly. Perhaps you'll get a new one at Christmas." when they break their iPad.
That's what I consider being a boss.
A story of our young kid.
We had twins when she was 3. And she really liked them. Until they started moving and getting into her stuff. Then she really hated them. So much so that she would go out of her way to hurt them. When going to the bathroom, she would go the long way so she could step on their fingers. When we weren't looking, she would push them over. When one of them knocked over one of her toys, she picked him up and bodyslammed him.
It made life a living hell. We tried everything we could think of. Time outs, losing stuff, whatever. Right afterwards, 10 minutes later, she would be on them again.
Then one day, about 3 months after it started, it just stopped. Like magic. No clue why.
On the other hand, if you don't buy them a new 3DS right away, there's a valuable lesson here somewhere.
It seemed to register. But I think one of these days some sacrificial tech will really teach them this. And I wonder if that will make all the difference for respecting cell phones.
I mentor a highschool robotics team and 90% of the kids phones have cracked screens.
Just the part and tools, mind you. Not labor. They do the labor themselves. It’s really not that hard. (Even in the so-called unrepairable phones! I did an iPhone 12 battery last year. iFixit has those guides down to a science).
Might work miracles at showing teens they can fix problems (even those that even their parents are scared of!), that repairing stuff isn’t that scary, and that $40ish can go quite a long way.
Famously, the Dusun in Borneo teach their children to respect knives by allowing them to play with them (and cut themselves) as toddlers.
The bison example, I would think any child would be very wary of walking up to a bison. On top of that, if a child were to approach a bison I highly doubt the bison would come out with full offensive. They'd probably assume a defensive posture to scare the kid away. If the kid kept coming you should keep in mind that mammals recognize babies of other mammals. It would be pretty extraordinary for the bison to consider a human child as a threat and attack them.
The cars though, yeah. I don't even want to get into that.
Famously, lions kills lion babies, that is babies of own species when they encounter babies of another lion group.
The point is that you are at their mercy and that it takes training and education to understand and predict that danger ahead of time. Even adults are ignorant along these lines. Everything is a spectrum, but there is a threshold, in my opinion, in which the probabilities of disaster become 100% out of your control for certain activities.
For example, you can watch this guy on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV1fzwfJpmQ who appears to be calm and an "expert" on interacting with bears. However, you can also watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqwYUkJYRQc in which a grizzly shows absolutely insane stamina and strength, covering huge distances of rough terrain and water. It means that the guy in the previous video is 100% at complete mercy of the bear, no matter what he says. (As an aside, I'm actually surprised that guy hasn't had more trouble, as he clearly seeks out bear encounters.)
I think my larger point is that part of the education of both children and adults is teaching to understand and ultimately respect the reality in which we live in. Animals, physics, biology, etc. all exist and we must live within those rules and understand the consequences of pushing them. I can't go jump into the sun just to try it out. And a project manager stating a schedule as if it dictates reality doesn't mean it does. Lol. This scene from The Counselor is getting at these lines of thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIn7y4ejIFM.
Unless your kids are interested in and want to learn free running and parkour, at which point this is how you learn. Of course there is reason to be careful, but fear often plays a large role in that.
I guess my point is that anyone who needs to train safety totally understands how important it is for someone to understand the specific danger intimately
a lot of danger is removed by teaching kids how to properly use tools. my son learned to cook at age 8 or 9. yes, he gets burned sometimes, but he knows how to properly use a gas stove and he has learned to be careful with it because he had the opportunity to use it frequently and become familiar with it. he can cook a meal unsupervised, and i guess that will boost his confidence as he tries more complex recipes.
> a theory in education which posits that individuals or learners do not acquire knowledge and understanding by passively perceiving it within a direct process of knowledge transmission, rather they construct new understandings and knowledge through experience and social discourse, integrating new information with what they already know (prior knowledge).
A bunch of the big One Laptop Per Child people were strong constructivists. It didnt seem super successful, but the OS really did a lot to build a more open sandbox for compute that kids could more directly be involved with, see & manipulate. I wish that effort had gone a bit better, had developed more compelling learning software & been given a shot at a much bigger scale, where more could have been learned/tried.
Note: I have no children nor do I plan to. Exactly because I have no idea how to deal with them nor do I want them to suffer being with me lol
You mean parents can't seem to tolerate even a single dead child. And that's true, especially when most parents only ever have one or two children.
Obviously they don't want them to die. To parents, their children aren't an abstract idea or a number that they can rationalize away.
If every parents react the same way then that is effectively the whole society no? Imagine the reaction of a modern day town if a child had broke their neck from the playground, what would the reaction? I wouldn't put demolishing the playground outside of the realm of possibility.
> Obviously they don't want them to die. To parents, their children aren't an abstract idea or a number that they can rationalize away.
Yea and this is why this is quite interesting to think about for me. In a way, perhaps it is better that failures to happen in small numbers many times, instead of 1 big societal level failure that only need to happen once. I think part of the problem is that people have access to global news today. Even 1 children choking on some candy or whatever from the other side of the globe would mean that every children would be stripped of this experience.
This is extremely locale-dependent. In the US? There would be lawsuits, fences, height restrictions, and so on.
In the Netherlands? They’d put up a sign, maybe.
Are you saying that parents don't care when their children are killed in a school shooting?
That I believe is part of it. My parents were children before WWII and both came from large families—there were seven siblings on each side. On the other hand my generation had typically two kids.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that my grandparents didn't love their kids or care as much about them given their numbers but the fact is—put brutally—there was considerable solace in having 'spares'.
Today, it is very easy to forget that prewar many more kids per capita never reached adulthood. Most people alive today have never known a time without penicillin or the pre-polio-vaccine days. People in those days were much more fatalistic about life and the lives of their kids as life back then was considerably more 'fragile'. Today, we expect our kids to reach adulthood and outlive us, back then most hoped that would happen but they were more circumspect about it. When a kid died of course parents would be terribly upset but when it happened they always knew there was more chance of it happening than just a remote possability.
I noticed this fatalism in my grandparents, especially my grandmother, she came from a big family and she had a big family and in both cases some kids died before reaching adulthood.
He stressed the importance of spontaneous, unstructured play. As you note it leads to important social development, it improves creativity and could lead to much better academic performance into the teens according to the studies he showed me.
When he designed a playground it wasn't "here they can do A and there they can do B", but he strived to provide spaces that facilitated spontaneous play. He wanted the kids to do their own thing, and provided as many options as possible. An important factor here is that kids enjoy different kinds of play. Not everyone wants to kick a ball, some want more social play so might need a space that allows for that, perhaps a secluded sitting group.
However as you note safety is a big issue. He had a guiding principle of two kinds of safety. There's subjective saftey, if you're high up you know falling might hurt. This is what kids should learn, and it's important they get to do that without permanent injury.
The second kind is objective safety, which relates to the environment and equipment, which facilitates this learning of subjective safety. There shouldn't be rocks near by equipment which could cause permanent injury if a kid fell of the equipment. There shouldn't be gaps in the swing attachment where a kid could lose a finger, and so on.
I think if I had kids my gut feeling would be to prevent harm and unpleasant experiences, because I wouldn't want to experience those things myself, much less those in my charge who may not be equipped to handle it as well. If I allow myself to be driven by that instinct however, they'll never be well equipped which does not make for a well rounded adult. It hurts to see immediate family hurting even in trivial capacities, but a parent must seemingly be able to endure that if the children are to come to be able to stand on their own.
And one day he just had to try it and feel what all these stories were about. He started crying immediately. We went to the hospital and came back rather quick. It wasn't so bad, just had to have a bandage for a couple of days.
Some weeks later he does it again. On purpuse.
!!??
I tell my brother and he answers: "I kind of understand him. Sometimes I want to do it too."
Similar story: I have a good friend who, as a kid, regularly had to have poison control called for him. It didn't matter what his parents did to hide the stuff he shouldn't drink, he would still try to get to it and drink it. Despite having to have his stomach pumped multiple times.
What children perhaps need is a different amount of parenting in different stages. Someone wrote that first you are the authority figure and the lighthouse for love and safety, then you become more of a mentor as they grow up.
Again, the best you can hope for is that they learn good enough values and let them live their lives, it’s THEIR LIVES, not yours and maybe they will come to you for help. And when that happens, go to town!
I disagree. It's best done with adult supervision, by adults who either at least allow play, if not are still playful themselves.
Yes teens do need some time without adults for a sliver of contexts, but the vast majority of learning is optimized when having the availability of at least 2 responsible adults who aid when called on but do not impose.
Lots of our ideas about teenagers, what kids can and cannot do etc are very recent and very contrary to history's proof that they absolutely can
In psychology, the rest of your post is what "play" means. It's basically anything done as practice, or with low stakes, or without other purpose.
The parents realize that their children will be screwed if they don't get into a good college, and the poorer parents need scholarships too! The principal's philosophical musings won't pay the bills.
People who are homeless or starving are mainly mentally ill, or simply have no skills to offer any employer and no desire to do any better.
basic woodworking skills are things that they can start picking up in HS shop classes; I spent summers working in a furniture factory framing chairs as a kid.
got a neighbour who does asphalt paving -- just driveways. Dude is booked solid through the Fall and into December, and does alright. Not Palo Alto FAANG money but he's got a nice truck and a fishing boat and a nice garden that we bonded over / share tips about. point is: plenty of options for doing alright; the rest of the world ain't SF or NYC
As someone who never ever even remotely had the grades to get into an engineering program and has spent his entire career as a robotics engineer, experiencing a lot of terrible engineers with advanced degrees (among a ton of incredibly brilliant ones!), I'm just not sold on it being that big a deal. I think the larger harm is a parent applying that kind of pressure.
All that being said, everything in moderation. I don't think it means, "hey let your kid do whatever." But it also doesn't mean, "force your child to study the violin and load them up with an entire childhood of structured programs until they hate you."
I suppose the question is whether the “learning density” is high or low, and diverse, in video games. I spent a lot of time on single player games as a kid and am open to the idea that MMOs give you more learning (particularly social, of course), but I do wonder how they compare with, say, team sports or running around the woods with your friends.
The way I'm approaching it is simply: all things in moderation. Did you go outside today? Do a bit of tidying? Spend some time at the craft table? Go nuts with Super Mario after dinner. Did you wake up and play Mario for a few hours and get cranky when your brother asked you to play outside? Might be time to press the parental finger on the scale.
Seems really hard to tell, and perhaps we should just be skeptical of "easy" / "dopamine hooks" things like games, and perhaps unskeptical of hard things like science, art, etc. -- if a child wants to spend lots of time on a hard thing that's probably a good sign, if they want to spend lots of time on an easy thing that may or may not be good.
When you screw up team play on the playground you can make enemies, rivals that will follow you through school for years to come, a reputation (for better or worse). You may have to look another kid in the eye and tell them, "No".
I don't doubt you can acquire some skills from online play, but if you think you're leveling up in self-esteem, social skills, I imagine that will get really put to the test when you find yourself alone at a party, or in an interview for a job.
Like flight simulators, they can be educational but I suspect it's a whole 'nother level of learning and experience when you could die if you screw up.
To be clear, im not saying it has to come from their parents. Just that it’s usually the dad powerbombing the kid on the bed and advocating for contact sports. This dynamic illustrated: https://imgur.io/8RZn2YF
They’re very keenly tuned in to social feedback, far more so than we may realize as adults.
IMO this is also why it’s so important as an adult to be very intentional and unambiguous when appropriate. Flat statements like “that’s rude” or “that was very kind” can be very powerful.
Also worth considering how online interactions change the game- they’re trying all the same gambits, but the kinds of feedback they get are very very different than in person.
Labels without understanding is kinda pointless. My friend's 5 year old has translated 'rude' to mean 'something I don't like'. Whenever he gets a timeout he calls his parents rude. It's actually pretty hilarious.
What I’m really getting at is that we don’t always point out to other adults when they’re being rude, and when we do, our goal isn’t to teach them that they’re being an ass. With kids and teens, it’s worth taking a conscious effort to reframe these kinds of interactions.
Specific language choices are also very important - eg always “that’s rude” and never “you’re rude”.
I like this a lot. That is so true. Personal anecdote:
When I got my first car as a teenager (a cheap, used, beat-up sedan), I would often take it out to 'play', ehm, 'test the world'. I lived in a rural area and would drive random, remote backroads for hours with no maps (and no cell phones at the time). I would try to see if I could get lost. I never succeeded. I was always able to eventually find my way, while I was simultaneously building spatial awareness and a general sense of direction that accompanies me to this day. The winter time gave me the best 'testing' environment. I would drive these backroads when they were icey and very slick. When I had certainty there was no traffic anywhere near, I would see how I handled my car when I lost control. A few rotations later, after spinning uncontrollably, I was able to regain steering and was able to navigate out of the problem.
Risky? Sure. Useful skills? Yes. Would my parents have stressed out knowing what I was doing, definitely. I'd like to think I'm a much better driver today because of it and have gotten myself out of some potentially consequential accidents because of my awareness of how a vehicle handles when out of control.
Many people learn from doing - many kids especially. Being raised in proverbial padded rooms may mask very beneficial learning that corresponds to the real consequences of life that we will inevitably face in adulthood. There will always be risk by letting our kids loose a bit more, and thats probably the scariest of things for many parents..
"they're not playing. 'Play' is a misleading term. They're testing the world. They're learning how things work. How gravity works. How friction holds lego together. How actions cause reactions. How friends and strangers behave when you do things. How to use language with make believe. How to comfortably and safely explore new ideas out loud with their action figures. How to discover what feels good and what doesn't. They're not playing. They're growing."
My kids are young. But I'm confident this is generally true for teenagers, too. One quick example: I played WoW and looking back... I learned a ton about how to work in a team. How to be social. What social behaviours work and don't work. How to deal with people you don't like. How to delay gratification. How to plan. And it was all in a low-stakes environment.