Lies We Tell Kids(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
Lies We Tell Kids
http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html
432 comments
I don't know that I've ever read a really good account of the hows and whys of swearing. It seems to me the idea that we're mistaken that swear words are taboo completely misses the fact that we defined these words as taboo to start with. I think restricting children from swearing is in part to give more power to swear words, because as adults we find it useful to have these powerful words. Teaching children that swear words aren't taboo seems to be teaching them a definition at odds with rest of society and would deprive them of a useful set of words if it succeeded, which I doubt it would. In fact teaching kids that swear words are just words is exactly the kind of lie this essay is talking about.
This is basically right. The words are taboo because it's useful to have taboo words, so the culture deliberately makes them so.
Taboo words are useful because they transcend politeness. If a normally civil person comes into your dinner party and tells you that the fucking ceiling is about to fall down, you get moving. You don't waste time looking around for the ironic smile. You don't reproach the person for speaking out of turn.
But it goes beyond simple cultural coding. The neurologists say that there's a physiological basis for swearing: the brain is wired to do so under certain conditions. Under extreme or sudden distress, swearing helps us cope, and the reverse is probably also true: swearing helps to work you into a rage or a panic. That's one very good reason why we tell kids not to swear and correct them when they do: It's a way of calming them down, and of teaching them to be calm, and of encouraging them to reserve their moments of adrenaline-surging fury for appropriate times.
Taboo words are useful because they transcend politeness. If a normally civil person comes into your dinner party and tells you that the fucking ceiling is about to fall down, you get moving. You don't waste time looking around for the ironic smile. You don't reproach the person for speaking out of turn.
But it goes beyond simple cultural coding. The neurologists say that there's a physiological basis for swearing: the brain is wired to do so under certain conditions. Under extreme or sudden distress, swearing helps us cope, and the reverse is probably also true: swearing helps to work you into a rage or a panic. That's one very good reason why we tell kids not to swear and correct them when they do: It's a way of calming them down, and of teaching them to be calm, and of encouraging them to reserve their moments of adrenaline-surging fury for appropriate times.
Interesting. So I wonder if exceptions are the programming language analogue of swearing?
NullFuckingPointerException.
They are certainly highly correlated.
Obligatory xkcd comic:
http://xkcd.com/290/
Second obligatory xbcd:
http://xkcd.com/292/
VelociRaptorException
http://xkcd.com/292/
VelociRaptorException
Now that is insightful. I think you're saying that, when a program gets into an unstable state of stress and confusion, it throws exceptions... and vice versa.
I could buy that.
I could buy that.
Python swears a lot.
The spectrum of motivations for the pressure we put on kids to not "swear" includes "being polite" and "being polite" is related to communication skill. There is a quote attributed to Mark Twain which equates politeness with something which prevents people at the dinner table from killing each other.
Well said.
check out Steven Pinker's "Why We Curse", http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=246c0071-a9cd-46e2...
That was a great article.
It also touched on a commonly-told lie which pg's essay didn't mention: Eternal true love and monogamy in marriage.
It also touched on a commonly-told lie which pg's essay didn't mention: Eternal true love and monogamy in marriage.
I wouldn't quite say unequivocally that those are lies, or at least that true love is a lie.
The poem True Love by Nobel Prize Winner Wislawa Szymborska replies better than I can:
True love. Is it normal / is it serious, is it practical? / What does the world get from two people / who exist in a world of their own?
Placed on the same pedestal for no good reason, / drawn randomly from millions but convinced / it had to happen this way - in reward for what? / For nothing. / The light descends from nowhere. / Why on these two and not on others? / Doesn't this outrage justice? Yes it does. / Doesn't it disrupt our painstakingly erected principles, / and cast the moral from the peak? Yes on both accounts.
Look at the happy couple. / Couldn't they at least try to hide it, / fake a little depression for their friends' sake? / Listen to them laughing - its an insult. / The language they use - deceptively clear. / And their little celebrations, rituals, / the elaborate mutual routines - / it's obviously a plot behind the human race's back!
It's hard even to guess how far things might go / if people start to follow their example. / What could religion and poetry count on? / What would be remembered? What renounced? / Who'd want to stay within bounds?
True love. Is it really necessary? / Tact and common sense tell us to pass over it in silence, / like a scandal in Life's highest circles. / Perfectly good children are born without its help. / It couldn't populate the planet in a million years, / it comes along so rarely.
Let the people who never find true love / keep saying that there's no such thing.
Their faith will make it easier for them to live and die.
Edit: I can't figure out how to get CRLFs in the right places, so here's the link for the properly formatted version: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/694.html
The poem True Love by Nobel Prize Winner Wislawa Szymborska replies better than I can:
True love. Is it normal / is it serious, is it practical? / What does the world get from two people / who exist in a world of their own?
Placed on the same pedestal for no good reason, / drawn randomly from millions but convinced / it had to happen this way - in reward for what? / For nothing. / The light descends from nowhere. / Why on these two and not on others? / Doesn't this outrage justice? Yes it does. / Doesn't it disrupt our painstakingly erected principles, / and cast the moral from the peak? Yes on both accounts.
Look at the happy couple. / Couldn't they at least try to hide it, / fake a little depression for their friends' sake? / Listen to them laughing - its an insult. / The language they use - deceptively clear. / And their little celebrations, rituals, / the elaborate mutual routines - / it's obviously a plot behind the human race's back!
It's hard even to guess how far things might go / if people start to follow their example. / What could religion and poetry count on? / What would be remembered? What renounced? / Who'd want to stay within bounds?
True love. Is it really necessary? / Tact and common sense tell us to pass over it in silence, / like a scandal in Life's highest circles. / Perfectly good children are born without its help. / It couldn't populate the planet in a million years, / it comes along so rarely.
Let the people who never find true love / keep saying that there's no such thing.
Their faith will make it easier for them to live and die.
Edit: I can't figure out how to get CRLFs in the right places, so here's the link for the properly formatted version: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/694.html
I prefer "Working at love" to "Falling in love" - it addresses both of those "lies"
I prefer "Working at love" to "Falling in love" - it addresses both of those "lies"
But that takes out quite a bit of the romanticism out of it, doesn't it?
But that takes out quite a bit of the romanticism out of it, doesn't it?
Not if it works.
Not as much as a messy divorce or breakup between people who don't work at love :)
When I call them lies, I didn't mean to say they don't exist, or that two people can't be happy, in love and monogamous forever.
But we certainly misrepresent to children the prevalence of this sort of thing.
Look at fairy tales and movies. To a child, _all_ people grow up, meet their perfect true love, marry them and stay together forever. As for the damaging part of the lie, of course there's no need to work at a relationship because the match is just so perfect.
But we certainly misrepresent to children the prevalence of this sort of thing.
Look at fairy tales and movies. To a child, _all_ people grow up, meet their perfect true love, marry them and stay together forever. As for the damaging part of the lie, of course there's no need to work at a relationship because the match is just so perfect.
That's why I started out saying "working at love" - make sure to tell kids that things don't magically turn out happily ever after. Tell them that lots of marriages end because of things like money, selfishness, infidelity, and boredom.
There are a lot of things about my marriage that are worse than when I was single, but there are a lot of things that are a whole lot better. On balance I'm way ahead, but we both work at it every day. It's worth working at because of how great it is. And that's a truth worth telling.
There are a lot of things about my marriage that are worse than when I was single, but there are a lot of things that are a whole lot better. On balance I'm way ahead, but we both work at it every day. It's worth working at because of how great it is. And that's a truth worth telling.
Aside from good analysis, the beginning is full of humorous gems. I'm not sure if the humor is accidental, or if the author picked humorous examples deliberately.
I'm sure it's intentional. Pinker's written many excellent books for laypeople which are full of great, fun examples. And the books themselves are great. He has a knack for explaining new, interesting ideas in an engaging way.
Thanks!
Swear words seem to be such a necessary part of language that I'm pretty sure new ones would arise if we ever completely legitimised the old ones. When you wake up at 2 am and discover that your balcony is on fire(^), it's nice to know that your language has a word set aside specifically for situations like that.
In the last few decades, it seems that the C-word has become more taboo even as the F-word has become less so, thanks to the efforts of feminists who like to bitch about it. (Come to think of it, "bitch" seems to have got slightly more taboo during my lifetime as well, for similar reasons.) And then there's a whole new class of newly-taboo words like the N-word -- admittedly nobody shouts that word when they hit their finger with a hammer just yet, but perhaps they will in the future.
(^) That happened to me the other week. I can't remember exactly what I said, but it was neither intelligent nor graceful.
In the last few decades, it seems that the C-word has become more taboo even as the F-word has become less so, thanks to the efforts of feminists who like to bitch about it. (Come to think of it, "bitch" seems to have got slightly more taboo during my lifetime as well, for similar reasons.) And then there's a whole new class of newly-taboo words like the N-word -- admittedly nobody shouts that word when they hit their finger with a hammer just yet, but perhaps they will in the future.
(^) That happened to me the other week. I can't remember exactly what I said, but it was neither intelligent nor graceful.
Steven Pinker does a pretty admirable job of running down some ideas on swearing:
http://www.tnr.com/currentissue/story.html?id=246c0071-a9cd-...
http://www.tnr.com/currentissue/story.html?id=246c0071-a9cd-...
I teach my child not to swear because OTHER adults think there's something wrong with it. I truly don't give a fuck, but I don't want my son to be banned from his best friend's house because his mom heard him say "fuck."
My 12 year old's school allows swearing, and while it is curiously disturbing to hear a six year old swearing like a sailor while playing a video game, it is interesting to see what happens to the older kids as the novelty wears off. I allow my child to swear, but he respects which words I would rather not hear around the house, and I've never heard him swear when it was inappropriate. So, I teach my son how not to be banned.
Where is this school? I want in (for my kids)!
As someone who's considered this tactic (I'm some years away from having children, but planning seems like a good idea), I'm interested in how that's working out. Have you ruined cursing for your kid as some people imply this tactic would?
Well, he's 4 and, although he knows every bad word except "cunt," he knows better than to say them, at least in front of grown-ups. But cursing is not ruined for him - he still thinks cursing is hilarious and he frequently asks me to say a bad word.
I would say it's working out. He doesn't offend the tribal elders and I don't have to lie by simulating outrage - I've told him the real reason why he can't curse.
I would say it's working out. He doesn't offend the tribal elders and I don't have to lie by simulating outrage - I've told him the real reason why he can't curse.
Why not cunt?
That's about the only word we've never slipped up and said around him. It's hard to stop 30 years of potty-mouth cold turkey.
Yeah. No kidding. Honestly? Fuck that. ;)
Oops, I downvoted this prior to reading the parent. I'd change my vote if the interface allowed...
lol. That would look pretty rude if you hadn't read the parent.
[deleted]
Swearing would lose its force if we weren't all told it was wrong throughout childhood. Parents who stop their children swearing are doing the hard work to Keep Cursing Special, and should be thanked for their services to the foul-mouthed.
Does it count as a 'lie' if it is believed by the parent?
There are senses of the word that include that, but I meant mostly things parents say knowing they're false, or at least that they'd admit were false if questioned.
There are senses of the word that include that, but I meant mostly things parents say knowing they're false, or at least that they'd admit were false if questioned.
In that case, I wonder if religion counts as a lie. Lots of religious people either truly believe, or have done a great job of tricking themselves into thinking they believe.
Much religious belief has a special protected status, though -- you aren't supposed to ask bare questions about the truth value of religious statements, or tell the truth when talking to someone else's kids;
Little jimmy: "doing that makes the baby jesus cry"
Adult: "Don't worry, Jimmy. Jesus is dead."Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Jaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lonergan
and you might understand more about "lies"
I read them. What did you want me to see?
And the alternative: those who've tricked themselves into "not believing," but're still in the same reality tunnel, with the wall furnishings taken down but the same core dogma.
Thanks for the clarification.
It seems to me then, that some of the situations that you describe are more often not lies but situations where parent actually believes it himself.
It seems to me then, that some of the situations that you describe are more often not lies but situations where parent actually believes it himself.
But there's certainly also the possibility that the parent thinks he believes it, although all of his actions and other beliefs reveal that he doesn't believe it.
Daniel Dennett has addressed this well. No one debates the existence of Mt. Everest, and nobody has to assert that they believe in it. To identify yourself as someone who believes in something, there must be some question as to whether or not you would. People who say they believe in something which is at the core of their group identity, and for which there is no strong evidence, are rather obviously choosing not to question those beliefs the way they would question any other belief -- including the very similar beliefs of other people's religions.
So the fact that the parent "believes" in holy reincarnation or holy levitation or holy mindreading doesn't necessarily mean that he is being honest when he tries to raise his kid to believe in such things. Do they really believe those things to be real the same way they believe Mt. Everest to be real? If not -- if there is any hiccup to his belief -- then he is lying to his kid as well as himself.
Daniel Dennett has addressed this well. No one debates the existence of Mt. Everest, and nobody has to assert that they believe in it. To identify yourself as someone who believes in something, there must be some question as to whether or not you would. People who say they believe in something which is at the core of their group identity, and for which there is no strong evidence, are rather obviously choosing not to question those beliefs the way they would question any other belief -- including the very similar beliefs of other people's religions.
So the fact that the parent "believes" in holy reincarnation or holy levitation or holy mindreading doesn't necessarily mean that he is being honest when he tries to raise his kid to believe in such things. Do they really believe those things to be real the same way they believe Mt. Everest to be real? If not -- if there is any hiccup to his belief -- then he is lying to his kid as well as himself.
Which?
I don't think this is true. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone under the age of 40 (that is, approximately of breeding age) who is genuinely offended by most words that are designated taboo. Any offence that is publicly displayed is most likely a put-on to illustrate they are more cultured that the offender.
What's worse is that it's entirely subjective what words a culture counts as taboo. I've seen US TV shows aimed at teenagers for 5-6PM time slots that repeatedly use the word 'bollocks' when portraying a stereotypically British person. In the US, 'bollocks' is just a funny word, but in Britain it is considered a swear word albeit a fairly mild one that I'm not averse to muttering when I walk out of the supermarket having forgotten to buy something.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with saying these words, it's simply taboo because someone hearing them might take offence. but we've lost the people who might be offended and still kept the taboo. It's brain dead.
What's worse is that it's entirely subjective what words a culture counts as taboo. I've seen US TV shows aimed at teenagers for 5-6PM time slots that repeatedly use the word 'bollocks' when portraying a stereotypically British person. In the US, 'bollocks' is just a funny word, but in Britain it is considered a swear word albeit a fairly mild one that I'm not averse to muttering when I walk out of the supermarket having forgotten to buy something.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with saying these words, it's simply taboo because someone hearing them might take offence. but we've lost the people who might be offended and still kept the taboo. It's brain dead.
I there are plenty of taboo words, but they have changed over time. 50 years ago people had no problem saying extremely racist or sexist things in the open but now it's a new taboo. IMO taboo words relate to taboo thoughts.
The odd things is the FCC is not what's keeping really taboo words off the air but they still keep the old guard of psudo taboo words off of prime time.
The odd things is the FCC is not what's keeping really taboo words off the air but they still keep the old guard of psudo taboo words off of prime time.
I doubt taboo words are (always, or necessarily) related to taboo thoughts. It's not taboo to think about fucking, but in many contexts it's taboo to use the word instead of its "milder" alternatives.
I think it represents a more taboo set of thoughts / actions than it's milder alternatives. Fill in the blank: Illicit lovers ____ where married people have ____ and young lovers make ____.
PS: It's not accurate but many people still think the world started with: "Found/ Under Carnal Knowledge" or "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" which comes back to the idea that the word means more than just the act of procreation.
PS: It's not accurate but many people still think the world started with: "Found/ Under Carnal Knowledge" or "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" which comes back to the idea that the word means more than just the act of procreation.
Ah, I know the answers!
disport
headaches
mistakes
-----------
Alternatively:
pork
mommy & daddy alone time
the beast with two backs
-----------
The possibilities are overwhelming!
Interestingly, I find that some of the more creative "euphemisms" for sex (pork is a middling example) have more shock value when they show up in conversation... the old standards are simply overused, in spite of our best efforts in child rearing, and don't work anymore in conjuring up sufficiently taboo images. Terse, vivid imagery is much more of a live wire.
disport
headaches
mistakes
-----------
Alternatively:
pork
mommy & daddy alone time
the beast with two backs
-----------
The possibilities are overwhelming!
Interestingly, I find that some of the more creative "euphemisms" for sex (pork is a middling example) have more shock value when they show up in conversation... the old standards are simply overused, in spite of our best efforts in child rearing, and don't work anymore in conjuring up sufficiently taboo images. Terse, vivid imagery is much more of a live wire.
I personally know quite a few people who are offended by foul language.
What constitutes foul language may be cultural but that's beside the issue. Imagine, a child from 1950s American suburbs was raised in that belief that certain words were wrong to use. The child was consistently reinforced in this belief throughout his childhood by all adults he met but never had it explained to him. Later, as an adult, he finds many friends who swear freely, and, not knowing the reason it is supposedly wrong, adopts the practice himself. Yet, in the back of his mind he still remembers his entire childhood telling him it was wrong and he know that those people genuinely believed that it was wrong. Clearly there was a reason for this taboo to begin, but without knowledge of the reason, how is he supposed to know whether it is still relevant? It doesn't matter whether there is any intrinsic property of the words that is wrong, what matters is thet there is a taboo and whose to say that the taboo isn't still relevant?
Teaching kids not to swear as a rule is especially important when one remembers that there are still places in society where the taboo holds strong and for the children to succeed in those places, they must not accidentally say anything that will offend someone.
What constitutes foul language may be cultural but that's beside the issue. Imagine, a child from 1950s American suburbs was raised in that belief that certain words were wrong to use. The child was consistently reinforced in this belief throughout his childhood by all adults he met but never had it explained to him. Later, as an adult, he finds many friends who swear freely, and, not knowing the reason it is supposedly wrong, adopts the practice himself. Yet, in the back of his mind he still remembers his entire childhood telling him it was wrong and he know that those people genuinely believed that it was wrong. Clearly there was a reason for this taboo to begin, but without knowledge of the reason, how is he supposed to know whether it is still relevant? It doesn't matter whether there is any intrinsic property of the words that is wrong, what matters is thet there is a taboo and whose to say that the taboo isn't still relevant?
Teaching kids not to swear as a rule is especially important when one remembers that there are still places in society where the taboo holds strong and for the children to succeed in those places, they must not accidentally say anything that will offend someone.
Keeping a taboo when the underlying reason for it has gone away tends to be detrimental for society. I saw a wonderful documentary recently called "Born rich" (I highly recommend it, amongst other things from it I finally learned why there are a number of US personalities whose educational background seems so at odds with their outward demeanour. It's that the privileged simply can't get chucked out of a University, no matter how poorly they perform.) in which one of the interviewees was worrying about whether it was OK to have taken a group of her Jewish friends to lunch at her club, and speculating that it certainly would have been frowned upon had they been black.
I've no idea whether this taboo she transgressed is real or not. I'd certainly suggest it shouldn't be, it's the kind of prejudice you giggle at when you read it in the popular literature of the 30s and 40s. However, if it isn't real, the mere concern over it in the mind of the members keeps them from expanding their cultural horizons. It has become a permanently inhibiting fear, without any real referent.
In short, if you suspect a taboo is no longer culturally relevant you should probably consider yourself to have a duty to break it to get it out of the way as quickly as possible.
I've no idea whether this taboo she transgressed is real or not. I'd certainly suggest it shouldn't be, it's the kind of prejudice you giggle at when you read it in the popular literature of the 30s and 40s. However, if it isn't real, the mere concern over it in the mind of the members keeps them from expanding their cultural horizons. It has become a permanently inhibiting fear, without any real referent.
In short, if you suspect a taboo is no longer culturally relevant you should probably consider yourself to have a duty to break it to get it out of the way as quickly as possible.
"In short, if you suspect a taboo is no longer culturally relevant you should probably consider yourself to have a duty to break it to get it out of the way as quickly as possible."
If your goal is change society, maybe. But, if your goal is to succeed within a society, then maybe not. Some taboos begin for good reason and just because you suspect that they're not relevant doesn't mean that they're not.
I would suggest that if you suspect that a taboo is no longer relevant, you have a duty find out for sure and learn why it ever was in the first place.
If your goal is change society, maybe. But, if your goal is to succeed within a society, then maybe not. Some taboos begin for good reason and just because you suspect that they're not relevant doesn't mean that they're not.
I would suggest that if you suspect that a taboo is no longer relevant, you have a duty find out for sure and learn why it ever was in the first place.
Hmmm; agreed. Some of the obscenity taboos aren't quite so brain-dead, either, at second glance. Sure, "cunt" and "vagina" aren't at all the same word, but I wouldn't say that if my web developers co-workers used the word "vagina" constantly that would be just fine.
As we're living in a reality where, you know, rape and suchlike happens fairly frequently, if I were a woman in a mostly male workplace and the word vagina was constantly bandied about, is it wrong that I'd feel uncomfortable?
Or say I was a middle-school math teacher who wrote all of his word problems in the form "so, one vagina is moving at 12 miles per hour due east, and...".
Talk is a step towards action, and it does matter what people say, as we are led to imagine them carrying out related actions, and we often assume (rightly or wrongly) some level of intent behind speech.
Maybe that's part of the reason behind some of the taboo words? Not to discount, of course, the unreasonably deep cultural discomfort with sex... but just, you know, tread lightly if you want to accelerate taboo expiration.
And it doesn't so much explain "shit", but that's possibly related -- I don't really want a discussion of poo-poo during lunch, for example, and there are very logical reasons that it might spoil my appetite (I'd rather focus my imagination on this delicious steaming burrito, thank you very much).
As we're living in a reality where, you know, rape and suchlike happens fairly frequently, if I were a woman in a mostly male workplace and the word vagina was constantly bandied about, is it wrong that I'd feel uncomfortable?
Or say I was a middle-school math teacher who wrote all of his word problems in the form "so, one vagina is moving at 12 miles per hour due east, and...".
Talk is a step towards action, and it does matter what people say, as we are led to imagine them carrying out related actions, and we often assume (rightly or wrongly) some level of intent behind speech.
Maybe that's part of the reason behind some of the taboo words? Not to discount, of course, the unreasonably deep cultural discomfort with sex... but just, you know, tread lightly if you want to accelerate taboo expiration.
And it doesn't so much explain "shit", but that's possibly related -- I don't really want a discussion of poo-poo during lunch, for example, and there are very logical reasons that it might spoil my appetite (I'd rather focus my imagination on this delicious steaming burrito, thank you very much).
[deleted]
It gets pretty complicated when you think about idealism. We might be subtly lying to our kids by acting that the world is a great place where you can be happy. On the other hand, whether or not this is true is largely dependent on whether or not you believe it. So I think that passing such ideals to our kids might be a good thing. It's like that one quote from Second Hand Lions:
"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in."
"Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in."
I am having a hard time deciding if that counts. I think whether or not a lie might be believed by a parent is what makes it universally recognized as something all adults answer with "ask your parents".
I honestly never feel that I was lied to about swearing.
When I was a very young kid, 3rd or 4th grade, my Father told me that there was nothing wrong with swearing...but that I shouldn't do it in front of my my Mother.
My grade school teacher caught me swearing and she told me the same thing.
It is a respect thing, a culture thing. You don't swear in front of your mother for the same reason you don't take your dick out in public: It's considered impolite.
When I was a very young kid, 3rd or 4th grade, my Father told me that there was nothing wrong with swearing...but that I shouldn't do it in front of my my Mother.
My grade school teacher caught me swearing and she told me the same thing.
It is a respect thing, a culture thing. You don't swear in front of your mother for the same reason you don't take your dick out in public: It's considered impolite.
>Don't all 18 year olds think they know how to run the world? Actually this seems to be a recent innovation, no more than about 100 years old. In preindustrial times teenage kids were junior members of the adult world and comparatively well aware of their shortcomings.
This idea is fleshed out in the writing of John Taylor Gatto, a former Teacher of the Year who disagrees with near everything about modern education.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm
This idea is fleshed out in the writing of John Taylor Gatto, a former Teacher of the Year who disagrees with near everything about modern education.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm
amazing link
My least favorite pg essay. It's too easy to generalize about parenting, and so little of this essay applies to me.
1. Raising a kid in the city, and quite happily. 2. No prohibitions on swears in my house. Just at Grandma's, and only because it would offend her, not because swearing is inherently bad. 3. He goes to a school where they only teach you how to read, write, and do basic math. Everything else is a child-led research project. 4. We don't lie about turkeys. Turkeys are not very smart, and have no concept of "wanting to die." If he asked this question, I'd explore vegetarian options with him. 5. Pastafarians. He can make his own spiritual allegiences when he feels the desire to do so. 6. Drugs and sex haven't come up much, beyond the basic "where do babies come from" conversation. We've done that, he's satisfied for now.
On and on. I'm not the only parent like me, either. Be careful about generalizations.
1. Raising a kid in the city, and quite happily. 2. No prohibitions on swears in my house. Just at Grandma's, and only because it would offend her, not because swearing is inherently bad. 3. He goes to a school where they only teach you how to read, write, and do basic math. Everything else is a child-led research project. 4. We don't lie about turkeys. Turkeys are not very smart, and have no concept of "wanting to die." If he asked this question, I'd explore vegetarian options with him. 5. Pastafarians. He can make his own spiritual allegiences when he feels the desire to do so. 6. Drugs and sex haven't come up much, beyond the basic "where do babies come from" conversation. We've done that, he's satisfied for now.
On and on. I'm not the only parent like me, either. Be careful about generalizations.
Lying to your kids is like the kind of intellectual fashion I wrote about in "What You Can't Say." No parent thinks they lie to their kids-- except of course in necessary or harmless ways-- just as no one thinks what they believe is an intellectual fashion. But in retrospect it turns out most parents do, just as in retrospect it turns out most people's beliefs are influenced by intellectual fashions.
So if one has a strong conviction that lying to their kids is not an issue, that's not necessarily the kind of evidence one can trust. Plenty of parents you'd consider to be lying outrageously to their kids also think that.
So if one has a strong conviction that lying to their kids is not an issue, that's not necessarily the kind of evidence one can trust. Plenty of parents you'd consider to be lying outrageously to their kids also think that.
I'm a parent of three children (girl, 6; two boys, 3 yrs and 9 mos), and your essay resonated very strongly with me. Thanks for a great piece of writing.
I've found that I've done a better job as a parent when I consciously thought about these things beforehand, so that I was prepared to discuss them with my kids when they came up (and they always seem to come up much, much earlier than I expect). For example, questions from my daughter about jail led to crime, which led to drug use, which led to recreational drug use. Fortunately I had thought about this one quite a bit, so I was able to give the carefully crafted answer that I had wanted to give. But I haven't always been so lucky, and sometimes the lies come streaming out.
Raising kids - especially more than one - is in some ways like an intense startup experience, where you're constantly trying to extinguish fires, and you're only partially prepared for any one of them. You just do the best you can with the amount of patience, knowledge and raw ability you have at the time, which is never perfect. It's difficult, and transformative, and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything.
I've found that I've done a better job as a parent when I consciously thought about these things beforehand, so that I was prepared to discuss them with my kids when they came up (and they always seem to come up much, much earlier than I expect). For example, questions from my daughter about jail led to crime, which led to drug use, which led to recreational drug use. Fortunately I had thought about this one quite a bit, so I was able to give the carefully crafted answer that I had wanted to give. But I haven't always been so lucky, and sometimes the lies come streaming out.
Raising kids - especially more than one - is in some ways like an intense startup experience, where you're constantly trying to extinguish fires, and you're only partially prepared for any one of them. You just do the best you can with the amount of patience, knowledge and raw ability you have at the time, which is never perfect. It's difficult, and transformative, and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything.
The examples you presented to illustrate your argument ring false in my experience, and the premise seems flawed as a result. They may seem correct to you, depending on how your circle of friends behave.
It might be more correct to say everybody lies outrageously to everybody else, and sometimes one person is a parent and one person is a child.
It might be more correct to say everybody lies outrageously to everybody else, and sometimes one person is a parent and one person is a child.
I agreed that the essay could use more examples. I understand that the examples might seem silly in 100 years (or even 10), but it would have benefited from things like "In 2008, many parents told their kids X"
Is that not implied? We can assume an author is writing about the present and recent past unless told otherwise told.
In the notes, he mentions concern for how the readers 100 years from now will view his essays.
Yes I saw that. But how does it follow that he has to point out "in the year 2008"? When not given a particular time period, I always assume an author's example is meant to refer to the present. (Maybe I am not understanding your point).
I agree about the author's time being the default context. I just suggested the specifics because pg was so concerned about timelessness.
As my father once said: “they can make you go to school but they can’t make you do anything there.” Lying to your kids is common but optional. At 28 I can't think of a single time my father ever lied to me and as far as I can tell he never lied to my 10 year younger sister. Granted plenty of other people lied to me, but he had no problem pointing out that religion was silly, drugs where fun and dangerous, and conformity was optional if you accept society’s response etc. Odd as it might seem his accurate responces where frequently less than useful such as trying to describe chemistry at the atomic level to a 3rd grader and recomending the joy of sex (a book) to a teenager but such is life.
PS: One extreme example was he was told to lie so he could get a clearance by the person giving the interview and he refused.
PS: One extreme example was he was told to lie so he could get a clearance by the person giving the interview and he refused.
Well, he told you a lie: that religion was silly.
Religion can or cant't be the truth. Tell the kid god exits and you are lying(you don't know it) Tell him the contrary and you are lying(you don't know it).
Don't confuse the fact that both of you agree in something(which is normal between parents and son) with the fact this is the truth.
Religion can or cant't be the truth. Tell the kid god exits and you are lying(you don't know it) Tell him the contrary and you are lying(you don't know it).
Don't confuse the fact that both of you agree in something(which is normal between parents and son) with the fact this is the truth.
No, he didn't tell a lie. Religion is silly.
You don't have to "know" something is false to know if it's silly. Do I have a singing purple leprechaun on my desk? Well, think before you answer, Skepticism-Is-As-Bad-As-Faith; after all, you don't know whether or not I do!
So take a step back from your false equivalency and use the same common sense on this that you use every day in every other aspect of your life. If someone comes up to you with supernatural claims, every ounce of common sense and experience you possess should tell you that this person is probably saying something silly. And you shouldn't change your mind unless they actually manage to produce the kind of evidence that would change your mind if you were, say, sitting on a jury and contemplating a far-fetched alibi.
You don't have to "know" something is false to know if it's silly. Do I have a singing purple leprechaun on my desk? Well, think before you answer, Skepticism-Is-As-Bad-As-Faith; after all, you don't know whether or not I do!
So take a step back from your false equivalency and use the same common sense on this that you use every day in every other aspect of your life. If someone comes up to you with supernatural claims, every ounce of common sense and experience you possess should tell you that this person is probably saying something silly. And you shouldn't change your mind unless they actually manage to produce the kind of evidence that would change your mind if you were, say, sitting on a jury and contemplating a far-fetched alibi.
I'm aware that I lie to my kids, but sometimes it's appropriate for the child's development level. I said in another comment that "Animals fight, people hug" when we were watching Animal Planet. Now that's not true - people fight all the time and "hugging" - cooperating, loving, etc - is a conscious act that requires work and is relatively uncommon. The intent of the "lie" was to tell her that, as a person, she should not fight. I'll explain human nature and her responsibility to behave well despite the fact that others don't when she's older (like before she goes to Kindergarten)
Turkeys are not very smart, and have no concept of "wanting to die."
Turkeys are very smart birds and their behavior is very finely geared around not dying.
Turkeys are very smart birds and their behavior is very finely geared around not dying.
Exactly. There aren't suicidal turkeys; they get slaughtered and cleaned and cooked. Why is that so horrifying for a child?
Growing up in a farming community, death was common and not hidden from children. The more horrific thing for me as a kid was discovering:
"Today’s domesticated turkeys are anatomically manipulated to be so heavy and large breasted, because breast meat is the most desirable and therefore commands the best price, that they are now incapable of breeding naturally."
So, there are people who have to perform this artificially for the males and then for the females. In fact, since turkeys are now raised in mega-farms, there are people with this as their career.
"Today’s domesticated turkeys are anatomically manipulated to be so heavy and large breasted, because breast meat is the most desirable and therefore commands the best price, that they are now incapable of breeding naturally."
So, there are people who have to perform this artificially for the males and then for the females. In fact, since turkeys are now raised in mega-farms, there are people with this as their career.
Responding to half your post, there are cultures (such as farms) where death is dealt with more frankly, and it doesn't seem to cause harm to children outside of making them more practical.
One time I called my friend with some land in Texas, his 7 year old daughter picked up the phone. I asked "Can I speak with you Dad?", She said "sure he is feeding the chickens". I asked, "Do you name the chickens?". She replied "No, because we eat them, they taste good". Very innocent, cute response, from a very well adjusted kid.
My inlaws once raised a couple of turkeys. They did name them. Thanksgiving and Christmas. They tasted good.
I think the key is that it's the parents who are uncomfortable with death, since they don't have to deal with it on a daily basis, either.
Perhaps because children tend to assume animals are a lot smarter than they actually are (I remember that I used to), and that their experiences are more equivalent to human experiences.
I wonder whether this is natural, or whether it comes from the fact that children spend all their time watching movies and reading books about intelligent anthropomorphic animals.
I wonder whether this is natural, or whether it comes from the fact that children spend all their time watching movies and reading books about intelligent anthropomorphic animals.
I think children tend to project their own concept of being alive onto other creatures. Basically, they assume the turkey is, in some way, like them.
While I think a turkey clearly does not have the same understanding of mortality that we do, I also think that they clearly don't want to die. Basic survival is a common trait of any successful species. The concept of want is different, though, since they have a much more primitive type of consciousness.
While I think a turkey clearly does not have the same understanding of mortality that we do, I also think that they clearly don't want to die. Basic survival is a common trait of any successful species. The concept of want is different, though, since they have a much more primitive type of consciousness.
[deleted]
For their own sake, don't let your kids be vegetarian until they're at least 16, that's the worst disservice you could ever do them. I speak as a vegetarian myself, but you've got to be pragmatic.
Your kids need animal protein right up until their brains are done developing. It doesn't have to be very much animal protein, as little as a teaspoon a day does the trick, but there is no artificial or vegetable substitute yet derived that will work.
Personally, I think either letting or forcing a child to become vegetarian borders very close on child abuse. You'd be actively and artificially limiting their chances in life.
Your kids need animal protein right up until their brains are done developing. It doesn't have to be very much animal protein, as little as a teaspoon a day does the trick, but there is no artificial or vegetable substitute yet derived that will work.
Personally, I think either letting or forcing a child to become vegetarian borders very close on child abuse. You'd be actively and artificially limiting their chances in life.
The American Dietetic Association, at least, disagrees:
"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence."
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933...
Can you at least offer a source for your shocking claims?
"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence."
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933...
Can you at least offer a source for your shocking claims?
Erm, hardly shocking. It has been established since at least the 80s that vitamin B12 is essential for brain development, and any number of large scale developmental studies have been carried out to that effect.There are no non-animal sources for vitamin B12. If you find any doctor of medicine who will recommend a vegan or vegetarian diet to either a breast feeding mother or to a child, then they ought to be struck off.
Simply Googling for "vitamin B12 brain development" will return you any number of papers on the subject, but most of them are behind their respective journal's paywalls unfortunately. However, the fact their abstracts include works like "cerebral atrophy" might give you some idea of their content.
Simply Googling for "vitamin B12 brain development" will return you any number of papers on the subject, but most of them are behind their respective journal's paywalls unfortunately. However, the fact their abstracts include works like "cerebral atrophy" might give you some idea of their content.
Unless you are a strict vegetarian (vegan), you can obtain B12 from eggs or dairy products. Most vegans are well aware of the danger of B12 deficiency, and either take supplements or eat foods fortified with B12. B12 supplements are inexpensive and widely available. So how exactly is B12 a serious problem for vegetarians?
There's also Marmite, which, according to wikipedia, is suitable for vegans (I'm a meat-eater though, so I have no idea really). I grew up eating practically nothing but Marmite sandwiches - it's awesome stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite
> vitamin B12
Cobalamin is added to any number of foods (usually in the form of cyanocobalamin), including bread, cereal, orange juice, soy milk, veggie burgers, soft drinks, and on and on. It is produced by bacteria.
I know multiple mothers who have breastfed while on vegan diets. It is trivial to get B-12, simply by taking a multivitamin, which they should do anyway regardless of diet (starting with prenatal preparation including folic acid supplementation).
I would suggest doing more research on the subject of veganism and discontinuation of spreading further misinformation.
Cobalamin is added to any number of foods (usually in the form of cyanocobalamin), including bread, cereal, orange juice, soy milk, veggie burgers, soft drinks, and on and on. It is produced by bacteria.
I know multiple mothers who have breastfed while on vegan diets. It is trivial to get B-12, simply by taking a multivitamin, which they should do anyway regardless of diet (starting with prenatal preparation including folic acid supplementation).
I would suggest doing more research on the subject of veganism and discontinuation of spreading further misinformation.
Cite? I've never seen any evidence that kids need animal protein to develop. I was raised vegetarian from birth and have no mental or physical defects to speak of. I have siblings and cousins and friends that are the same.
Vitamin B12 is the only thing that can be a challenge to get from non-animal sources, but that's only a concern if you're vegan. The whole "vegetarians don't get enough protein" thing is an overblown myth.
Vitamin B12 is the only thing that can be a challenge to get from non-animal sources, but that's only a concern if you're vegan. The whole "vegetarians don't get enough protein" thing is an overblown myth.
Yes, that's the thing. There's literally millions of people in Africa who get little or no animal protein, and they grow up just fine. The point is that study after study shows that with just a tiny portion of animal protein, they end up a whole lot smarter.
I'm not trying to suggest you aren't yourself a smart person, just that simply because you can't see the ill effects your actions cause doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm not trying to suggest you aren't yourself a smart person, just that simply because you can't see the ill effects your actions cause doesn't mean they don't exist.
Your use of "vegetarian" and "animal protein" are unconventional. "Vegetarian" generally refers to someone that does not eat meat but does eat eggs and dairy, so when you said "vegetarian kids need animal protein", it implies they need meat. But meat is not essential for development; B12 is, and can be got from milk or eggs.
It's true anyone raising their child vegan ought to be aware of B12 deficiency. Time was when B12 could be got from dirt on vegetables pulled from the ground, but nowadays we're pretty finicky about cleanliness.
It's true anyone raising their child vegan ought to be aware of B12 deficiency. Time was when B12 could be got from dirt on vegetables pulled from the ground, but nowadays we're pretty finicky about cleanliness.
> The point is that study after study shows that with just a tiny portion of animal protein, they end up a whole lot smarter.
You're confusing two separate issues. The key factor is that treating malnourishment of impoverished and starving African children is beneficial. This has nothing to do with whether they are fed concentrated protein from animals or plants.
You're confusing two separate issues. The key factor is that treating malnourishment of impoverished and starving African children is beneficial. This has nothing to do with whether they are fed concentrated protein from animals or plants.
Counterexample: A significant fraction of Indians are vegetarian. They seem to be doing ok in the brain development department.
Are there confounding factors? Sure... but calling it child abuse seems a bit much.
Are there confounding factors? Sure... but calling it child abuse seems a bit much.
> Your kids need animal protein right up until their brains are done developing. It doesn't have to be very much animal protein, as little as a teaspoon a day does the trick
This is utter nonsense on multiple levels.
1. Biochemically it doesn't matter what the source of the amino acid is. You can supply all essential amino acids from combinations of any number of plant sources.
2. "Vegetarian" does not exclude animal sources, as it typically includes milk and eggs. Vegan does, but that doesn't matter anyway, as per #1.
3. "A teaspoon" -- where did you come up with that rule of thumb? This is obviously superstition.
4. Brains require fats (especially DHA and EPA) and glucose. The human brain is 60% fat. Glucose is the fuel. Omega-3 fatty acids (DHA and EPA) can be supplied directly through microalgae oil, or converted from ALA in flax, walnuts, and other sources.
5. Human breast milk is only 5%-10% protein (by calories), yet during breastfeeding is when a human grows proportionately the fastest.
Stop with your protein myth and ridiculous child abuse nonsense.
This is utter nonsense on multiple levels.
1. Biochemically it doesn't matter what the source of the amino acid is. You can supply all essential amino acids from combinations of any number of plant sources.
2. "Vegetarian" does not exclude animal sources, as it typically includes milk and eggs. Vegan does, but that doesn't matter anyway, as per #1.
3. "A teaspoon" -- where did you come up with that rule of thumb? This is obviously superstition.
4. Brains require fats (especially DHA and EPA) and glucose. The human brain is 60% fat. Glucose is the fuel. Omega-3 fatty acids (DHA and EPA) can be supplied directly through microalgae oil, or converted from ALA in flax, walnuts, and other sources.
5. Human breast milk is only 5%-10% protein (by calories), yet during breastfeeding is when a human grows proportionately the fastest.
Stop with your protein myth and ridiculous child abuse nonsense.
There is an exception to every rule. You can't cover every base in a short essay. I'm sure his next few paragraphs were going to make explicit his exclusion of the extremely progressive.
A couple questions regarding your points:
1) which city, and how urban? I keep trying to convince my wife that the city (Chicago in my case) is ok and I'm gathering data
3) that sounds like a great school - public or private? name? I'd love to find a school like that.
1) which city, and how urban? I keep trying to convince my wife that the city (Chicago in my case) is ok and I'm gathering data
3) that sounds like a great school - public or private? name? I'd love to find a school like that.
I live in Cambridge, MA. While it's not inner city, it's not the burbs, either. I have several parent friends who live in NYC, Austin, and DC, as well. Chicago sounds like a great city to raise a child. My son goes to a Montessori school, and it's perfect for him. He's already defining his own curriculum, and starting to work on being responsible for setting and accomplishing his own goals (he's 6). However, YMMV with Montessori programs. Some are much better than others.
I grew up in Chicago and raise 2 kids in Oak Park, which is to Chicago what Brooklyn is to Manhattan. Speaking of Brooklyn, one of my two business partners is going to be raising a kid there as well.
The problem with big cities and children is school systems; you can get around that by paying for explicit private schools, or the de facto private school systems you get in the near suburbs.
The problem with big cities and children is school systems; you can get around that by paying for explicit private schools, or the de facto private school systems you get in the near suburbs.
Congratulations. You're a very rare parent, in my experience.
The essay is based on PG's observations of what he believes to be the majority of families. Essay's targeted to the edge cases tend to have small audiences.
The essay is based on PG's observations of what he believes to be the majority of families. Essay's targeted to the edge cases tend to have small audiences.
But generalizations are just that... general.
The essay doesn't apply to my parenting but I enjoyed reading it anyway because I know that it applies to many other parents. I could identify with aspects of it because I survived public schools.
You made the decisions to raise your child as you are for specific reasons. I can't imagine that this article doesn't touch onto some of the motivators behind your parenting style.
The essay doesn't apply to my parenting but I enjoyed reading it anyway because I know that it applies to many other parents. I could identify with aspects of it because I survived public schools.
You made the decisions to raise your child as you are for specific reasons. I can't imagine that this article doesn't touch onto some of the motivators behind your parenting style.
Essays must use generalizations. There are always exceptions to any possible example. However, you are probably reinforcing many, many other deep-seated cultural norms that were not used as examples. Some that may even drop out of favour in the future.
I'm glad there are more enlightened parents out there like you. I completely agreed with every point he made because that's how I was raised. It never occured to me that some parents might actually be honest with their kids.
My least favorite pg essay.
I agree; it's even worse than the one on philosophy.
I agree; it's even worse than the one on philosophy.
Me too.
I use to like PG essays, I don't like this.
I don't remember being lied by my parent's. I used to ask my father a lot, and he as a scientist replied. Then I started reading books. They didn't hide anything.
I use to like PG essays, I don't like this.
I don't remember being lied by my parent's. I used to ask my father a lot, and he as a scientist replied. Then I started reading books. They didn't hide anything.
"Very smart adults often seem unusually innocent, and I don't think this is a coincidence. I think they've deliberately avoided learning about certain things. Certainly I do. I used to think I wanted to know everything. Now I know I don't."
This is the most important paragraph of this essay. It's really important for anyone who is curious in general to understand this and I have never heard it expressed before.
"The bizarre half is what makes the religion stick, and the useful half is the payload."
This is actually a very effective marketing trick if you replace "bizarre" with unusual. Look at reddit - the alien makes it sticky, Google - unusual simplicity makes it sticky, Apple - unusually good looking devices.
I do think that with religion as with products, short term stickiness comes from the surface unusualness and long term stickiness comes from the payload - the actual utility (honesty and industriousness for religion, unsually intuitive interfaces for apple products, really good search algorithms for Google, and until recently at least, entertaining stories on reddit)
For people who don't find the long term utility in religion, the stickiness that comes from common unusualness is often not enough to maintain their 'belief'. This is truer for products than for religions though - which I'm sure is an evolutionary effect. It's a much harder decision to quit your group or clan than it is to abandon things. Clearly, Apple has managed to cross this product-religion boundary, making it stickier.
This is the most important paragraph of this essay. It's really important for anyone who is curious in general to understand this and I have never heard it expressed before.
"The bizarre half is what makes the religion stick, and the useful half is the payload."
This is actually a very effective marketing trick if you replace "bizarre" with unusual. Look at reddit - the alien makes it sticky, Google - unusual simplicity makes it sticky, Apple - unusually good looking devices.
I do think that with religion as with products, short term stickiness comes from the surface unusualness and long term stickiness comes from the payload - the actual utility (honesty and industriousness for religion, unsually intuitive interfaces for apple products, really good search algorithms for Google, and until recently at least, entertaining stories on reddit)
For people who don't find the long term utility in religion, the stickiness that comes from common unusualness is often not enough to maintain their 'belief'. This is truer for products than for religions though - which I'm sure is an evolutionary effect. It's a much harder decision to quit your group or clan than it is to abandon things. Clearly, Apple has managed to cross this product-religion boundary, making it stickier.
Regarding the horrible nature of some things in the world - pollution, the pain and suffering our lunch goes through, etc. - I think one of the reasons people don't always tell the truth is their own comfort with the way things are might be upended. I have a 5 year old who naturally is opposed to eating meat and who is shocked by the thought of killing something to eat it. I personally don't think I would eat something if I had to kill it first, yet I enjoy a bacon cheeseburger very much. I find my own rationalizations becoming thinner and thinner the more I live with him and notice his innate repulsion to meat. I can see the influence packaging has on his thinking - chicken nuggets are acceptable to him - as far removed from an actual walking, clucking feathered chicken as you can get and still be chicken - and by reference can see the influence packaging has had on my own ability to quickly dismiss thoughts of desperate cows clambering to avoid the stun bolt as I bite into my bacon cheeseburger. I can do it quite easily, but would never kill a cow.
I think another reason we don't tell kids the truth about some of the horrible things in the world is that we ourselves shy away from them. Its as if we are all stepping over the dead horse on our way into our house, and the children point and notice the smell, but we hurry them along, anxious to be past the nastiness. Its part of our sanitized world, but I wonder if staring at the dead horse all day long isn't a kind of trap in itself. Where does it end? Can you spend your life pitying the lives of others? Thoreau makes an interesting observation:
“There was a dead horse in the hollow by the path to my house, which compelled me sometimes to go out of my way, especially in the night when the air was heavy, but the assurance it gave me of the strong appetite and inviolable health of Nature was my compensation for this. I love to see that Nature is so rife with life that myriads can be afforded to be sacrificed and suffered to prey on one another. . . . The impression made on a wise man is that of universal innocence. Compassion is a very untenable ground. It must be expeditious. Its pleadings will not bear to be stereotyped.”
I think another reason we don't tell kids the truth about some of the horrible things in the world is that we ourselves shy away from them. Its as if we are all stepping over the dead horse on our way into our house, and the children point and notice the smell, but we hurry them along, anxious to be past the nastiness. Its part of our sanitized world, but I wonder if staring at the dead horse all day long isn't a kind of trap in itself. Where does it end? Can you spend your life pitying the lives of others? Thoreau makes an interesting observation:
“There was a dead horse in the hollow by the path to my house, which compelled me sometimes to go out of my way, especially in the night when the air was heavy, but the assurance it gave me of the strong appetite and inviolable health of Nature was my compensation for this. I love to see that Nature is so rife with life that myriads can be afforded to be sacrificed and suffered to prey on one another. . . . The impression made on a wise man is that of universal innocence. Compassion is a very untenable ground. It must be expeditious. Its pleadings will not bear to be stereotyped.”
thoughts of desperate cows clambering to avoid the stun bolt
I'm certainly not saying that this never happens (How would I know? And from what I hear you don't want to give the meatpacking industry too much slack; they cut every corner they can. Read Fast Food Nation...) but Temple Grandin claims to have built an entire career out of making sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. She says that panicking the cows is more than just cruel: It lowers the quality of the meat and it threatens to slow your slaughterhouse to a halt.
I read a book by Grandin, and she's an unusual writer; perhaps because she's autistic, she's almost supernaturally incapable of mincing words. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable reading her work to a kid. :)
Incidentally, as a non-vegetarian married to a vegetarian, I understand your point of view perfectly...
I'm certainly not saying that this never happens (How would I know? And from what I hear you don't want to give the meatpacking industry too much slack; they cut every corner they can. Read Fast Food Nation...) but Temple Grandin claims to have built an entire career out of making sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen. She says that panicking the cows is more than just cruel: It lowers the quality of the meat and it threatens to slow your slaughterhouse to a halt.
I read a book by Grandin, and she's an unusual writer; perhaps because she's autistic, she's almost supernaturally incapable of mincing words. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable reading her work to a kid. :)
Incidentally, as a non-vegetarian married to a vegetarian, I understand your point of view perfectly...
I think most of these "lies" are to avoid things that strongly attract our minds but do not cause them to produce. The things we encourage don't attract our minds immediately, but after time they do, and they cause our minds to be productive.
Here's something potentially controversial:
I believe the most common mistake parents make with raising their kids is attempting to treat them like adults all of the time.
This trend seems to be most common with educated parents. I would bet that when/if PG has his own kids, he would fall flat for it. I'm a parent and became aware of this concept prior to having the first child. Yet I still catch myself from time to time.
The "Lies We Tell Kids" article reminds me of virtually all educated parents attempting to explain things to their children at the moment when it's least effective. I often see (in public places) parents trying their best to explain to children why candies are bad for them, why curse words are bad, etc... all the while the kids are whining and throwing further tantrums. Such attempts are completely useless. What is most effective at those moments should be a stern warning, followed by immediate action if the kid does not comply to your command. Such actions are typically: immediate timeouts, loss of privileges, etc... I'm not talking about or even suggesting spanking the kid.
Regarding the "stern warning" method above, this is my favorite: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1889140163 I consider that one of the best things I have read since having kids.
I believe the most common mistake parents make with raising their kids is attempting to treat them like adults all of the time.
This trend seems to be most common with educated parents. I would bet that when/if PG has his own kids, he would fall flat for it. I'm a parent and became aware of this concept prior to having the first child. Yet I still catch myself from time to time.
The "Lies We Tell Kids" article reminds me of virtually all educated parents attempting to explain things to their children at the moment when it's least effective. I often see (in public places) parents trying their best to explain to children why candies are bad for them, why curse words are bad, etc... all the while the kids are whining and throwing further tantrums. Such attempts are completely useless. What is most effective at those moments should be a stern warning, followed by immediate action if the kid does not comply to your command. Such actions are typically: immediate timeouts, loss of privileges, etc... I'm not talking about or even suggesting spanking the kid.
Regarding the "stern warning" method above, this is my favorite: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1889140163 I consider that one of the best things I have read since having kids.
I know the type of parent you mean (I live in Cambridge, MA), and I definitely would not be one of them.
Incidentally, though I agree treating kids too much like adults is a mistake, I don't think it's the most common one. Only a small number of "progressive" parents do that. From what I've seen, the worst mistakes parents make are (a) setting a bad example and (b) inconsistency.
Incidentally, though I agree treating kids too much like adults is a mistake, I don't think it's the most common one. Only a small number of "progressive" parents do that. From what I've seen, the worst mistakes parents make are (a) setting a bad example and (b) inconsistency.
There's an interesting thing to note about sex amongst youth in rural, suburban, and urban settings. I've been privy to statistics held by birth control manufacturers (although the exact numbers evade my memory, the relations I remember). These show that urban youths begin having sex at an average age of 15. Suburban youths begin having sex at an average age of 14. Rural youths begin having sex at an average age of 13.
So, moving out to the suburbs might seem like protecting your child from having sex at an early age but the statistics would indicate otherwise.
So, moving out to the suburbs might seem like protecting your child from having sex at an early age but the statistics would indicate otherwise.
Does PG have kids?
I'm not advocating ignoring the essay if he doesn't.
But just as I'm leery of taking startup advice from someone who hasn't done one, I'd be tempted to discount this a bit.
The issue is that there are forces afoot in your brain when you have kids which are deep, powerful and extraordinarily difficult to ignore. Pre-mammalian lower-reptilian brain stuff.
Wanting to protect them is one of those.
I'm not advocating ignoring the essay if he doesn't.
But just as I'm leery of taking startup advice from someone who hasn't done one, I'd be tempted to discount this a bit.
The issue is that there are forces afoot in your brain when you have kids which are deep, powerful and extraordinarily difficult to ignore. Pre-mammalian lower-reptilian brain stuff.
Wanting to protect them is one of those.
You think his lack of kids would bias him when observing parents? Isn't this more or less the opposite of what courts argue -- that e.g. a judge who owns Microsoft stock should not be ruling on a Microsoft antitrust case, even if he is the only one who really knows what it would feel like for the shareholders were they walloped with a giant fine?
That's a very interesting point! But it seems like you'd want a judge who had at least been a stockholder, though not one in this particular company. Would either side consider a judge that stored his life savings in his mattress and disagreed with the right of corporations to be valid?
The different (and I'll admit I'm on thin ice here) is that kids have a visceral component that is difficult to ignore.
If I drop a brick on my bare foot and yell loudly, would it be more appropriate for someone else, who has never dropped such a brick, to judge whether or not I should have yelled?
The different (and I'll admit I'm on thin ice here) is that kids have a visceral component that is difficult to ignore.
If I drop a brick on my bare foot and yell loudly, would it be more appropriate for someone else, who has never dropped such a brick, to judge whether or not I should have yelled?
> The different (and I'll admit I'm on thin ice here) is that kids have a visceral component that is difficult to ignore.
Exactly - and thus there is value in having a neutral(ish) observer of the parenting process.
Exactly - and thus there is value in having a neutral(ish) observer of the parenting process.
By that argument, all OBGYNs should be men. Or women who've not been pregnant.
negative, ghostrider. Suggesting that a male obgyn may have a different and valuable perspective from a female obgyn is not the same as suggesting that all OBGYNs should be men.
To be explicit, I don't claim that all articles about parenthood should be written by non-parents, just that there's a particular type of value in ones that are, since they may more successfully divorce themselves from the visceral feelings of attachment that parents have towards their children.
To be explicit, I don't claim that all articles about parenthood should be written by non-parents, just that there's a particular type of value in ones that are, since they may more successfully divorce themselves from the visceral feelings of attachment that parents have towards their children.
You're right.
So the question then becomes:
"Does a male obgyn may have a different and valuable perspective from a female obgyn?"
So the question then becomes:
"Does a male obgyn may have a different and valuable perspective from a female obgyn?"
How subjective is gynecology? How much room is there for 'perspective'?
I think the metaphor has been taken too far to be useful here.
I think the metaphor has been taken too far to be useful here.
I would rather have a judge that impartially followed the law and was not swayed by his personal life circumstances or beliefs.
Having kids is one thing that would allow you to speak on this topic from personal experience. Having been a kid is another.
As a descriptive account of what people do, he doesn't need kids. As a prescription for what people ought to do, we might trust someone more who has been through the process themself.
PG may not have kids, but I do. His observations of parenting are true nonetheless.
As a followup, it'd be interesting to know if any of the reviewers have raised kids.
I have a one month old and a 2.5yr old. Even before reading this, I've caught myself telling lies (or hiding truths) with my older kid.
We were watching a show about baboons on Animal Planet and the dominant male baboon killed and ate a baby impala (more graphically than I expected them to show). I was going to change the channel, but I asked myself "Why is it bad if my kid knows that some animals eat other animals?" I left it on and talked to her about how some animals get food. I also told her that it's different with people, because we've more or less agreed to let every person live.
Then I was going to change the channel again when there was a (again, more graphic than I expected) fight, I left it on and told her that animals fight, but it's not OK for people to fight. Something like "Animals fight, people hug".
So I guess I picked my lies, but I was conscious of it. My guiding principle is that I will
1) instruct my kids on correct and appropriate behavior
2) let them know that people have different expectations and not everyone behaves as well as I expect them to.
PS My wife was pissed that I let her watch the baboons killing and fighting :)
We were watching a show about baboons on Animal Planet and the dominant male baboon killed and ate a baby impala (more graphically than I expected them to show). I was going to change the channel, but I asked myself "Why is it bad if my kid knows that some animals eat other animals?" I left it on and talked to her about how some animals get food. I also told her that it's different with people, because we've more or less agreed to let every person live.
Then I was going to change the channel again when there was a (again, more graphic than I expected) fight, I left it on and told her that animals fight, but it's not OK for people to fight. Something like "Animals fight, people hug".
So I guess I picked my lies, but I was conscious of it. My guiding principle is that I will
1) instruct my kids on correct and appropriate behavior
2) let them know that people have different expectations and not everyone behaves as well as I expect them to.
PS My wife was pissed that I let her watch the baboons killing and fighting :)
I think it is a sort of lie to tell someone the truth in a context they can't handle appropriately. So, I don't see anything wrong with what you are doing. It'd be wrong if you never stopped telling her such things.
I have.
This essay does not describe my approach to parenting, but I know parents like that.
Made me wonder if PG's SO is expecting.
This essay does not describe my approach to parenting, but I know parents like that.
Made me wonder if PG's SO is expecting.
a good point, essay gets downgraded a bit due to fact that the author does not have direct experience, but like startups, just because you've done one does not make you good at it, and many of the most interesting are first timers (see facebook/google/and most yc co.'s). This essay would be better if he was expecting and thus thinking a lot about being a parent.
Besides being a woman, Marie Curie was the first and ONLY person to ever recieve a Nobel Prize in different sciences. Something her male counterparts have yet to do, so maybe there's something there besides her sex.
Let N be the number of great scientists. It would be sensible for the curriculum to include the n greatest scientists, where n << N. Since Marie Curie always gets included in the textbooks, we can conclude either that she ranks as one of the n greatest scientists, even for very small n, or that the reasons for her inclusion go beyond her scientific accomplishments. Considering how few history textbooks mention (for example) Euler, Gauss, Lagrange, Laplace, Lavoisier, Faraday, Dirac, Onsager, or Landau---whose scientific accomplishments all rival or surpass Curie's---it's safe to conclude (as Paul did) that the textbook writers include some non-scientific factors when deciding which scientists to include.
Let's face it: almost no one reading this knows who the hell Onsager and Landau are---but you probably should. (They were both giants of 20th-century physics.) No one disputes that Marie Curie was a great scientist, but that's not enough to account for her ubiquity in the textbooks. And since the most significant diff between Curie and Landau is gender, it's accurate to say that Curie gets included because she was female.
Let's face it: almost no one reading this knows who the hell Onsager and Landau are---but you probably should. (They were both giants of 20th-century physics.) No one disputes that Marie Curie was a great scientist, but that's not enough to account for her ubiquity in the textbooks. And since the most significant diff between Curie and Landau is gender, it's accurate to say that Curie gets included because she was female.
I don't think anyone is trying to deny that Curie gets a little more attention in the school curriculum and the popular mind just because she's a woman, but I think the point asnyder was making is that she at least has the distinction of being a great scientist, unlike George Washington Carver who (and I had to look him up, since having not been educated in the US I'd never really heard of this guy) doesn't seem to be in that category.
Oh, and be careful with statements like "almost no one reading this knows who the hell Onsager and Landau are". There's a surprisingly large number of physicists reading this board.
Oh, and be careful with statements like "almost no one reading this knows who the hell Onsager and Landau are". There's a surprisingly large number of physicists reading this board.
We aren't talking about the users of this board, we are talking about the average American who went through the public education system. 99.9% of them have heard of George Washington Carver, but not of Onsager and Landau.
Oh, I interpreted "almost no one reading this knows..." as referring to the users of this board.
Your original interpretation was right. Perhaps I underestimated the number of physicists hanging out here. (I hope so! It would be cool to think people here know who these guys are.) In any case, the original point remains: even on Hacker News, Marie Curie is far better-known than Lev Landau, and it's not because she was the greater scientist.
I am not a physicist, and I have not heard of either of those guys, but I've heard of Curie and Carver.
I have a Landau book in my hands right now ;)
She also died as a result of her research. She carried glowing vials of radioactive goo in her pockets! I don't care what gender or race your are, her life is just a great story that is interesting as well as informative. This may have something to do with her ubiquity in addition to her gender.
I'm sorry I don't know what these "points" mean. Please don't take whatever points are shown with my comment seriously: it's just the default value.
I think Paul Dirac is insufficiently praised not only in the layman's world, but even in the scientific community. Although he was a contemporary of Albert Einstein and although his contributions were comparably important and various, Einstein enjoys a rock-star-like status, whereas Dirac is quite inadequately acknowledged.
The same would hold for Arnold Sommerfeld, Leonhard Euler and many others, some of whose names and contributions I perhaps don't know about.
I think Paul Dirac is insufficiently praised not only in the layman's world, but even in the scientific community. Although he was a contemporary of Albert Einstein and although his contributions were comparably important and various, Einstein enjoys a rock-star-like status, whereas Dirac is quite inadequately acknowledged.
The same would hold for Arnold Sommerfeld, Leonhard Euler and many others, some of whose names and contributions I perhaps don't know about.
Curie is included to inspire girls to become scientists. The textbooks provide both a record of history, and role models for students.
I'm not entirely convinced that record-keeping should trump role models.
I'm not entirely convinced that record-keeping should trump role models.
You forgot to mention Turing :)
Turing doesnt get much space in school textbooks.
And von Neumann too despite being one of the giants of mathematics in 20th century.
Indeed - Curie was most definitely "the shit", and that shouldn't be taken away from her.
However, it is also almost certainly true that she was taught because she was female. Now, I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing.
I would, in fact, suggest an addition to PG's categories of lies: "Making kids think things are easier than they are".
No-one knows better than PG, living in the start-up world, that Big Things are often only even attempted because the people involved didn't realise how incredibly difficult they would turn out to be. If a child had been taught, truthfully, about the obstacles to succeeding as (say) a woman in science, that could well be one of the biggest things she learns from early science lessons. Layer this up over the next five to ten years, and how likely is she to go for that physics class - or even think she wants to?
Some of these lies are to tell kids that the world is as we wish it were, in the hope that they will grow up with these expectations and thereby make it so.
However, it is also almost certainly true that she was taught because she was female. Now, I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing.
I would, in fact, suggest an addition to PG's categories of lies: "Making kids think things are easier than they are".
No-one knows better than PG, living in the start-up world, that Big Things are often only even attempted because the people involved didn't realise how incredibly difficult they would turn out to be. If a child had been taught, truthfully, about the obstacles to succeeding as (say) a woman in science, that could well be one of the biggest things she learns from early science lessons. Layer this up over the next five to ten years, and how likely is she to go for that physics class - or even think she wants to?
Some of these lies are to tell kids that the world is as we wish it were, in the hope that they will grow up with these expectations and thereby make it so.
"Making kids think things are easier than they are"
Probably the most important lie I've unraveled in my mind over the last couple years reading experiences from real people (pg, etc) and things like "Myths of Innovation", etc.
This is ESPECIALLY dangerous if you (or your kids) are smart. If you're fairly smart, then school is easy. It's easy, so you never fail, so you never understand that many things (including most worth doing) are hard.
Probably the most important lie I've unraveled in my mind over the last couple years reading experiences from real people (pg, etc) and things like "Myths of Innovation", etc.
This is ESPECIALLY dangerous if you (or your kids) are smart. If you're fairly smart, then school is easy. It's easy, so you never fail, so you never understand that many things (including most worth doing) are hard.
It's not just that they're "hard"...it's that things are usually downright unfair. We never really teach children the essential role of luck in success, and how you can be the best by every objective metric, yet still fail because of phenomena that are outside of your control.
"This is ESPECIALLY dangerous if you (or your kids) are smart. If you're fairly smart, then school is easy. It's easy, so you never fail, so you never understand that many things (including most worth doing) are hard."
Add to that parents who keep telling their smart kids how they expect them to do well, that they can be and do anything they want in life, etc., and the amount of personal disappointment these kids face when life turns out to be more than just doing well on your SATs.
Add to that parents who keep telling their smart kids how they expect them to do well, that they can be and do anything they want in life, etc., and the amount of personal disappointment these kids face when life turns out to be more than just doing well on your SATs.
I've taken great care (and gotten my wife on board too) to change the way we praise our older girl. When she does something new, we no longer say "Wow, you're so smart!" - we say "Wow, that was great how you worked hard and kept trying until you succeeded!".
In case others need some help persuading, here is the link to that recent Scientific American article to that effect ( http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-sm... )
nice - a small but important distinctions, I'm going to use something similar.
"However, it is also almost certainly true that she was taught because she was female"
This is actually not the case. In fact, she was repeatedly denied entry into universities and had to fight especially hard for any education or appointments that she recieved.
This is actually not the case. In fact, she was repeatedly denied entry into universities and had to fight especially hard for any education or appointments that she recieved.
At first, I also misread this sentence in the way that you have. :)
What the sentence means to say is "It is also almost certainly true that students were taught about Curie because she was female."
What the sentence means to say is "It is also almost certainly true that students were taught about Curie because she was female."
Ah, yes -- on a related note, this is what I've seen as the function of "political correctness" (at sensible levels... it can obviously be carried to counterproductive extremes).
We lie about how racist, bigoted, homophobic, etc. the general public is (and try to browbeat them into lying as well), in the hopes that our kids will be less so.
We lie about how racist, bigoted, homophobic, etc. the general public is (and try to browbeat them into lying as well), in the hopes that our kids will be less so.
Was her work more important than Newton's, Darwin's, or Watson's? I'm not questioning that she was a great scientist. However, if you are going to remember three, she should not be one of them.
If you had to remember only three you could easily have an argument debating the merits of any three scientists. I wouldn't say her work is more important than those three, but I would say it's on that level. The book "Six Great Scientists" by J.G Crowther seems to think so too. It's quite unfortunate that Wikipedia has very little on her.
Or maybe J.G. Crowther was also fond of diversity.
BTW the most important woman in the history of science was Emmy Noether. Her theorem is central to Classical Mechanics and very important also in Quantum Field Theory.
BTW the most important woman in the history of science was Emmy Noether. Her theorem is central to Classical Mechanics and very important also in Quantum Field Theory.
"Probably the biggest lie told in schools, though, is that the way to succeed is through following "the rules." In fact most such rules are just hacks to manage large groups efficiently."
Reminds me of something Seth Godin (?) once said - that the whole purpose of school is to institutionalize mediocrity
Reminds me of something Seth Godin (?) once said - that the whole purpose of school is to institutionalize mediocrity
The main tool used by schools to manage large groups is competition. Whenever you get two or more people to compete then they have to be, by definition, doing the same thing. The rest of the rules are only there to cover the corner cases that competition misses.
Similarly, no one who is the best at something can ever, by definition, push the human race forward. Because to be the best at something means you have to be, by definition, doing the same thing as everyone else. C.f. here:
http://reddit.com/info/14l86/comments/c14o44
Similarly, no one who is the best at something can ever, by definition, push the human race forward. Because to be the best at something means you have to be, by definition, doing the same thing as everyone else. C.f. here:
http://reddit.com/info/14l86/comments/c14o44
To move forward you have to, by definition, be going in the same direction. The freakish geniuses change the human race, but it's the loyal hard-workers who move it forward.
[sorry to quibble over semantics, but it was too obvious an opportunity to pass p]
[sorry to quibble over semantics, but it was too obvious an opportunity to pass p]
"To move forward you have to, by definition, be going in the same direction."
The idea that progress has directionality is just a metaphor to aid visualization. It has no basis in reality. Your argument is a logical fallacy; I forget the name, but it involves using the same word in two different senses.
The idea that progress has directionality is just a metaphor to aid visualization. It has no basis in reality. Your argument is a logical fallacy; I forget the name, but it involves using the same word in two different senses.
Progress must have direction (at least implicitly, relative to that which is not progress), or we wouldn't be able to define it; it would just be "change".
Moreover, to say that freakish geniuses "change" the world would be a truism, except for the fact that "the world" doesn't actually change unless everyone else follows the freak. So the parent comment has merit -- you need the people who do weird things, and you need the people who do the hard work of filling in the gaps. Progress is defined by the movement of the whole, and not the movement of an individual.
Moreover, to say that freakish geniuses "change" the world would be a truism, except for the fact that "the world" doesn't actually change unless everyone else follows the freak. So the parent comment has merit -- you need the people who do weird things, and you need the people who do the hard work of filling in the gaps. Progress is defined by the movement of the whole, and not the movement of an individual.
You can't have an idea of progress without some way of distinguising better from worse, forward from back, more progressed from less progressed. it's been part of the word all along (latin 'progredi', to step forward) - not that etymology always matters, but in this case the metaphor is essential to the concept.
If we have a clear idea of what "pushing the human race forward" is (more knowledge? less famine? better morals?), then somebody can be the 'best' at it - even if they are the best by being somehow innovative.
I'm not sure that this is a fruitful discussion to be having, though - except that people often seem to talk about progress without reflecting on what they mean. Besides, you started it with "push the human race forward" ;)
If we have a clear idea of what "pushing the human race forward" is (more knowledge? less famine? better morals?), then somebody can be the 'best' at it - even if they are the best by being somehow innovative.
I'm not sure that this is a fruitful discussion to be having, though - except that people often seem to talk about progress without reflecting on what they mean. Besides, you started it with "push the human race forward" ;)
[deleted]
equivocation
Odd, outside of the top 5% of the academic class I never saw much competitive spirit.
awesome insight.
As a parent I have found myself lying to my kids exactly as layed out in this essay. Mostly along the lines of protections. I just have a couple of specific dissagreements.
Sex,
Having a soon to be 14 year old daughter this section hit close to home. My wife and I haven't told her lies about sex but we have certainly held back some things. Pregnancy and STD are important topics to understand but even more so are the emotional aspects. Sex can be a powerful binding and richly rewarding part of a relationship but only so far as each partner treats it with the appropriate respect. You may have casual sex but it comes at the cost of less meaning for sex in a committed relationship. I don't want her having sex now not because it may cloud her judgement but because I want her to be able to have something much better in the future.
Swearing,
Minor point. I tell my kids not to swear (and don't hardly swear myself) for the same reason I don't let them track mud in the house. I just think it's ugly. I hope that doesn't set me off as less educated.
Death,
There is too much to talk about in this kind of forum. I just wanted to note that talking about religion is far less controversial than talking about parenting.
Sex,
Having a soon to be 14 year old daughter this section hit close to home. My wife and I haven't told her lies about sex but we have certainly held back some things. Pregnancy and STD are important topics to understand but even more so are the emotional aspects. Sex can be a powerful binding and richly rewarding part of a relationship but only so far as each partner treats it with the appropriate respect. You may have casual sex but it comes at the cost of less meaning for sex in a committed relationship. I don't want her having sex now not because it may cloud her judgement but because I want her to be able to have something much better in the future.
Swearing,
Minor point. I tell my kids not to swear (and don't hardly swear myself) for the same reason I don't let them track mud in the house. I just think it's ugly. I hope that doesn't set me off as less educated.
Death,
There is too much to talk about in this kind of forum. I just wanted to note that talking about religion is far less controversial than talking about parenting.
I'd love to see the sequel: Lies We Tell Ourselves.
Seems like many of the things discussed have their origin in lies we continue to tell ourselves. Kids just get special versions. But if anything those instances provide a window into what we don't discuss honestly - sex, death, identity, formal education, and obeying authority.
Seems like many of the things discussed have their origin in lies we continue to tell ourselves. Kids just get special versions. But if anything those instances provide a window into what we don't discuss honestly - sex, death, identity, formal education, and obeying authority.
I dunno, "lies we tell ourselves" doesn't sound like a very good essay.
Since we don't know about the lies we tell ourselves, it would have to be "lies I see other people telling themselves".
And that pretty much translates to "Things that other people believe that I disagree with", which is a fairly boring topic for an essay.
Since we don't know about the lies we tell ourselves, it would have to be "lies I see other people telling themselves".
And that pretty much translates to "Things that other people believe that I disagree with", which is a fairly boring topic for an essay.
When's the last time you had an honest discussion with anyone about:
a) Sex (e.g., Do you satisfy your partner?) b) Death (e.g., Was your life meaningful?) c) Formal Education (e.g., If not, then what?) d) Identity (e.g., Who are you?) e) Authority (e.g., Who tells you what to do?)
I don't know, honesty seems much harder than settling on lies to tell ourselves.
a) Sex (e.g., Do you satisfy your partner?) b) Death (e.g., Was your life meaningful?) c) Formal Education (e.g., If not, then what?) d) Identity (e.g., Who are you?) e) Authority (e.g., Who tells you what to do?)
I don't know, honesty seems much harder than settling on lies to tell ourselves.
I have these kinds of discussion fairly often. In fact, I probably wouldn't consider somebody a friend until we'd had that kind of conversation. I find it hard to judge if that's unusual - maybe it is in other social circles?
I take the point that avoiding self-deception is hard, maybe impossible. But that's no different from talking about science, or history, or just about anything else.
I take the point that avoiding self-deception is hard, maybe impossible. But that's no different from talking about science, or history, or just about anything else.
That self-deception is exactly what I was getting at. I have no doubt that many have these discussions but it's so much easier to lie during them. I'd argue it's different in kind from science or history exactly because there's no independent record that can be consulted. Indeed, I can't see many parents lying to their kids about science or history because it would be so straight-forward to identify the lie. No, the lies seem much more personal exactly because we're already telling them to ourselves. Thus the sequel essay.
ah, in that case I do agree - and we're talking about something that huge swathes of philosophers, psychologists, social scientists and miscellaneous intellectuals have spent their lives arguing about.
That isn't to deny that a pg contribution could be illuminating!
That isn't to deny that a pg contribution could be illuminating!
I recently found this forum and I am very happy I did.
It is nice to see a threads of discussion end in agreement.
That doesn't seem possible in many other places.
I'd guess most of the top 10 start with "I don't have time for X", for many values of X.
If you don't have time for something, it just means you didn't make time for it. Despite what you think, it's not that valuable to you because you don't choose to do it.
I realized that by not exercising, I was explicitly saying my health or energy level were not important. Since that's just plain dumb, I started going to the gym 3x/week, and I'm going to start biking again soon.
If you don't have time for something, it just means you didn't make time for it. Despite what you think, it's not that valuable to you because you don't choose to do it.
I realized that by not exercising, I was explicitly saying my health or energy level were not important. Since that's just plain dumb, I started going to the gym 3x/week, and I'm going to start biking again soon.
"A sprinter in a race almost immediately enters a state called 'oxygen debt.' His body switches to an emergency source of energy that's faster than regular aerobic respiration. But this process builds up waste products that ultimately require extra oxygen to break down, so at the end of the race he has to stop and pant for a while to recover."
As a point of information, it's unusual to think of anaerobic respiration as an emergency source of energy; you tend to think of emergency situations as necessarily involving adrenaline, which increases heart rate, dilates blood vessels, etc. The biggest energy source of the 100m and 200m sprints is phosphocreatine, a very useful fuel for anaerobic metabolism; unfortunately for sprinters, it can be depleted in under ten seconds of top physical effort. (Incidentally, A.V. Hill received the 1922 Nobel Prize in Physiology for figuring out the proportions of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism that contribute to energy production in the various distances of Olympic footraces.)
This, of course, is all to say that sometimes lies aren't really malicious - as he says - but that it's simply easier to say simple things than complex things. Since it was tangential to the discussion anyway, it's no big deal.
And if you disagree (as many experts do, even amongst each other) about the role of phosphocreatine, I'll be perfectly content with you calling me a liar :)
As a point of information, it's unusual to think of anaerobic respiration as an emergency source of energy; you tend to think of emergency situations as necessarily involving adrenaline, which increases heart rate, dilates blood vessels, etc. The biggest energy source of the 100m and 200m sprints is phosphocreatine, a very useful fuel for anaerobic metabolism; unfortunately for sprinters, it can be depleted in under ten seconds of top physical effort. (Incidentally, A.V. Hill received the 1922 Nobel Prize in Physiology for figuring out the proportions of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism that contribute to energy production in the various distances of Olympic footraces.)
This, of course, is all to say that sometimes lies aren't really malicious - as he says - but that it's simply easier to say simple things than complex things. Since it was tangential to the discussion anyway, it's no big deal.
And if you disagree (as many experts do, even amongst each other) about the role of phosphocreatine, I'll be perfectly content with you calling me a liar :)
Also, that passage made me think that he was repeating the common (probable) falsehood that lactic acid is what causes the soreness and tiredness of muscles following anaerobic exercise. Recent research suggests that it is in fact a source of energy for the body, and slows down acidosis: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/3/R50...
PG: "I think they've deliberately avoided learning about certain things. Certainly I do. I used to think I wanted to know everything. Now I know I don't."
Can you give us some examples of things you don't want to know and avoid learning about? Also, you must already have some idea of what horrible truths you might discover if you learned further, so can you give us a general idea of what those are?
Can you give us some examples of things you don't want to know and avoid learning about? Also, you must already have some idea of what horrible truths you might discover if you learned further, so can you give us a general idea of what those are?
I wasn't thinking about horrible stuff so much as banal stuff. For example, celebrity gossip. I'm always annoyed in a grocery store when I find that before realizing it I've read the cover of some tabloid. It's like unconsciously picking up something and eating it, and then realizing too late that it was a mouse turd.
To a person unfamiliar with economics, accounting, math, etc. the financial markets seem magical, or at least mysterious. Prophets emerge to explain the markets, and often do so in vague and opinionated ways, that to the uninformed seem brilliant and enlightened.
Regarding this article, there are sociologists, psychologists, etc. that make a scientific/formal practice of answering questions like, 'Why do we lie to kids? What are the ramifications.'.
Where the majority of people reading pg's articles are technically proficient, our realm of knowledge generally doesn't extend into the pursuits of a sociologist/psychologist. And so those realms seem magical or mysterious to us.
Does it occur to anyone that the issues brought up in this article have probably been thoroughly studied, and well-reasoned, possibly even evidence based conclusions have been drawn, and in fact are publicly available.
In this age of information, perhaps the lie of the 'original thinking prophet' will go out of fashion.
Regarding this article, there are sociologists, psychologists, etc. that make a scientific/formal practice of answering questions like, 'Why do we lie to kids? What are the ramifications.'.
Where the majority of people reading pg's articles are technically proficient, our realm of knowledge generally doesn't extend into the pursuits of a sociologist/psychologist. And so those realms seem magical or mysterious to us.
Does it occur to anyone that the issues brought up in this article have probably been thoroughly studied, and well-reasoned, possibly even evidence based conclusions have been drawn, and in fact are publicly available.
In this age of information, perhaps the lie of the 'original thinking prophet' will go out of fashion.
[deleted]
I can think of another reason for lying to kids: because everybody else does, and if your kid doesn't play along there are consequences. I am reminded of Roman Polanski, who was Jewish but was raised Catholic at an early age to protect him from the Nazis. He ended up becoming an actual Catholic, because you can't tell a four year old that he's really a Jew, but has to pretend to be a Catholic, because they're incapable of being that deceptive. I can't remember why he finally left the Church in his teens, but it was for something like a conflict with a priest, the kind of thing that lots of gentiles have the Church over.
If your kid curses, talks about how there are no worthy black scientists, tells other kid about how the penis squirts semen into the vagina and that's where babies come from, and denies the existence of God (I live in a red state, this one may not be a big deal where some of you live, but in some places this will still mark you as a pariah), then there are certain consequences, especially if the child does it in front of adults, because other parents aren't like that. Nothing as severe as a trip to Auschwitz, but I at least want my kid to understand tribal taboos before breaking them.
If your kid curses, talks about how there are no worthy black scientists, tells other kid about how the penis squirts semen into the vagina and that's where babies come from, and denies the existence of God (I live in a red state, this one may not be a big deal where some of you live, but in some places this will still mark you as a pariah), then there are certain consequences, especially if the child does it in front of adults, because other parents aren't like that. Nothing as severe as a trip to Auschwitz, but I at least want my kid to understand tribal taboos before breaking them.
Given that we don't have to worry about Auschwitz, We also don't have to lie to our kids to teach them about taboos.
If you don't think there's anything wrong with swearing, you don't have to say "You can't swear because it's wrong." You can say, truthfully, that there are certain words grownups are allowed to use that children aren't. You can say "You are not allowed to say that because if you accidentally say it at a friend's house, his parents won't want you coming over to play anymore." That's very likely true. You may be leaving some things out -- reasons that you don't fully understand and therefore don't know how to explain to a small child -- but you don't have to actually tell any lies.
You don't have to believe in religion to teach your children that you respect other peoples' beliefs, and don't try to correct their religious beliefs when you don't agree with them. Of course, if you actually think they're stupid for having those beliefs, then you will have to lie by omission to help their social life. I haven't told my children any more than they asked about my beliefs, so it took until my daughters were about 10 until they realized I don't believe in God at all, but I didn't lie or pretend to believe something I don't, either. They understood from an early age that different people believe different things for a lot of reasons and it's only polite to respect that.
If your kid is curious enough to ask questions that can't be answered without explaining the mechanics of sex, you can also teach him that we don't really talk openly about sex in polite conversation, and that other kids might have parents that don't want them to know about it yet. And remind them that it's important to them socially that they don't get in trouble with their friends' parents.
You can say that George Washington Carver's achievements were not so much scientific as social (and you don't entirely understand why they're learning about him science class), without saying that no black scientists are worthy.
This is the approach I've taken, and it's worked pretty well so far. We live in a very "Christian" suburb, and so far my kids haven't been kicked out of any homes for being inappropriate, nor have any of their parents come to me with concerns about such things. (I have 16 year old daughters and a 6 year old son.)
If you don't think there's anything wrong with swearing, you don't have to say "You can't swear because it's wrong." You can say, truthfully, that there are certain words grownups are allowed to use that children aren't. You can say "You are not allowed to say that because if you accidentally say it at a friend's house, his parents won't want you coming over to play anymore." That's very likely true. You may be leaving some things out -- reasons that you don't fully understand and therefore don't know how to explain to a small child -- but you don't have to actually tell any lies.
You don't have to believe in religion to teach your children that you respect other peoples' beliefs, and don't try to correct their religious beliefs when you don't agree with them. Of course, if you actually think they're stupid for having those beliefs, then you will have to lie by omission to help their social life. I haven't told my children any more than they asked about my beliefs, so it took until my daughters were about 10 until they realized I don't believe in God at all, but I didn't lie or pretend to believe something I don't, either. They understood from an early age that different people believe different things for a lot of reasons and it's only polite to respect that.
If your kid is curious enough to ask questions that can't be answered without explaining the mechanics of sex, you can also teach him that we don't really talk openly about sex in polite conversation, and that other kids might have parents that don't want them to know about it yet. And remind them that it's important to them socially that they don't get in trouble with their friends' parents.
You can say that George Washington Carver's achievements were not so much scientific as social (and you don't entirely understand why they're learning about him science class), without saying that no black scientists are worthy.
This is the approach I've taken, and it's worked pretty well so far. We live in a very "Christian" suburb, and so far my kids haven't been kicked out of any homes for being inappropriate, nor have any of their parents come to me with concerns about such things. (I have 16 year old daughters and a 6 year old son.)
I think one of the most important purposes of morality is to keep people smart and interesting. I grew up in a pretty sheltered Christian environment, and the difference between how I thought and they way the jaded teenagers at public school thought was very distinct. The behaviors that are traditionally considered sinful end up making the sinner a boring and small minded person in the long run. This is essentially because sin destroys a person's imagination.
The object of sin is usually a very strong, visceral pleasure, and if there is anything that can control the focus of a person's mind it is strong, visceral pleasure. And, when I am thinking about pleasure, I'm not really thinking about anything. It is just a feeling, and feelings don't have any kind of logical content that can lead my mind to other thoughts. Finally, engaging in visceral pleasure makes everything else seem boring by comparison, while also requiring a greater amount of the pleasure's source to get a thrill. The combined result is me having a one track mind, constantly thinking about nothing.
The object of sin is usually a very strong, visceral pleasure, and if there is anything that can control the focus of a person's mind it is strong, visceral pleasure. And, when I am thinking about pleasure, I'm not really thinking about anything. It is just a feeling, and feelings don't have any kind of logical content that can lead my mind to other thoughts. Finally, engaging in visceral pleasure makes everything else seem boring by comparison, while also requiring a greater amount of the pleasure's source to get a thrill. The combined result is me having a one track mind, constantly thinking about nothing.
Thanks for the enlightenment. I never thought about that. I believe something that is deeply ingrained in our mind should have a reason.
Having felt in love when I wanted to work I can understand what you say. Love-sex actives some area in our mind, and nothing is more important in that moment.
Having felt in love when I wanted to work I can understand what you say. Love-sex actives some area in our mind, and nothing is more important in that moment.
Adults may be able to lie to children with their words, but they can rarely pull this off with their actions.
Each of us can remember the many times when, as children, we witnessed the difference between "what I say" and "what I do".
We were told not to swear, drink, smoke, or lie by parents who swore, drank, smoked and lied, not to gossip by adults who gossiped, not to cheat by teachers who cut corners themselves, to do the right thing by leaders who didn't, and to be great by celebrities who weren't so great.
Who knows, if adults actually did what they said, maybe they would have been able to pull it off.
We children may have been a little slow, but we weren't that stupid. After all...
"What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Each of us can remember the many times when, as children, we witnessed the difference between "what I say" and "what I do".
We were told not to swear, drink, smoke, or lie by parents who swore, drank, smoked and lied, not to gossip by adults who gossiped, not to cheat by teachers who cut corners themselves, to do the right thing by leaders who didn't, and to be great by celebrities who weren't so great.
Who knows, if adults actually did what they said, maybe they would have been able to pull it off.
We children may have been a little slow, but we weren't that stupid. After all...
"What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Interesting essay. I can't say I've read anything quite like it. So I guess that's a compliment!
A couple comments on minor points in your essay:
1) George Washington Carver is, or should be, known for his work for southern farmers and for his research and promotion of legumes and sweet potatoes including several interesting inventions. He is not one of the great scientists like Einstein, Hawking, Newton, etc. He probably is more famous because he was black, but that's not to say his contribution was insignificant. It wasn't.
2) You tend to hear (or read) two opinions about grade school teachers depending on the person: either they are tireless crusaders with hearts of gold or they are mediocre "if you can't's" that live for June, July and August.
I think the truth is more complex. Not all public school teachers were mediocre students. That's the tendency, and it's likely because in many parts of the country they don't get paid a comparable wage. The better students find higher paying jobs. I am an elementary school teacher myself who graduated with honors.
Elementary teachers have to be knowledgeable in EVERYTHING, including child development, literacy, mathematics, social sciences, writing, art and design, physical education, earth science, life science, physical science, etc. What would that be like to attempt to teach students all those various facets of human knowledge? Easy? Well, they're young. How complex could it be?
You'd be surprised how difficult. And you'd likely be intimidated. I'm sometimes intimidated still after 13 years of teaching elementary. Further, one of the most difficult parts of the job is teaching students who could care less and would rather raise an uproar! You wouldn't believe how bad it is.
So, grade school teachers don't know everything? Not experts in their fields? Surprising? At those mediocre salaries (in many parts of the country)?
Just something to think about.
A couple comments on minor points in your essay:
1) George Washington Carver is, or should be, known for his work for southern farmers and for his research and promotion of legumes and sweet potatoes including several interesting inventions. He is not one of the great scientists like Einstein, Hawking, Newton, etc. He probably is more famous because he was black, but that's not to say his contribution was insignificant. It wasn't.
2) You tend to hear (or read) two opinions about grade school teachers depending on the person: either they are tireless crusaders with hearts of gold or they are mediocre "if you can't's" that live for June, July and August.
I think the truth is more complex. Not all public school teachers were mediocre students. That's the tendency, and it's likely because in many parts of the country they don't get paid a comparable wage. The better students find higher paying jobs. I am an elementary school teacher myself who graduated with honors.
Elementary teachers have to be knowledgeable in EVERYTHING, including child development, literacy, mathematics, social sciences, writing, art and design, physical education, earth science, life science, physical science, etc. What would that be like to attempt to teach students all those various facets of human knowledge? Easy? Well, they're young. How complex could it be?
You'd be surprised how difficult. And you'd likely be intimidated. I'm sometimes intimidated still after 13 years of teaching elementary. Further, one of the most difficult parts of the job is teaching students who could care less and would rather raise an uproar! You wouldn't believe how bad it is.
So, grade school teachers don't know everything? Not experts in their fields? Surprising? At those mediocre salaries (in many parts of the country)?
Just something to think about.
Most lies are of a statistical nature. Moving to the suburbs is a good example. You're seeing lots of true things that aren't statistically representative. The extensive coverage of protected groups in history texts is the same way.
Look at some different lies:
1. "Grandma went to heaven." False.
2. "God doesn't kill good people." False, but containing a moral lesson.
3. "Your parents won't die." False, but translated properly ("Your parents won't die while you are a dependent"), probably true.
4. "2,998 people died in 9/11". True, but statistically at odds with its public perception.
The only harmful lie among those is the last one--the one that isn't a lie--and only because the "lesson" its constant repetition is designed to convey is disconnected from it.
..............
When I was a kid, I was told, literally, that bad people went to a hell and slept with burning maggots. This cartoonish lie has done me no harm.
Look at some different lies:
1. "Grandma went to heaven." False.
2. "God doesn't kill good people." False, but containing a moral lesson.
3. "Your parents won't die." False, but translated properly ("Your parents won't die while you are a dependent"), probably true.
4. "2,998 people died in 9/11". True, but statistically at odds with its public perception.
The only harmful lie among those is the last one--the one that isn't a lie--and only because the "lesson" its constant repetition is designed to convey is disconnected from it.
..............
When I was a kid, I was told, literally, that bad people went to a hell and slept with burning maggots. This cartoonish lie has done me no harm.
"Grandma went to heaven" is not falsifiable.
I'd prefer keeping this discussion focused on falsifiable lies. Let those of us who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the coming of the semantic web, or other supernatural phenomena believe what we want to believe.
I'd prefer keeping this discussion focused on falsifiable lies. Let those of us who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the coming of the semantic web, or other supernatural phenomena believe what we want to believe.
When something is falsifiable, that means it is suitable for examination by science. When something is not falsifiable it should be considered false, in most contexts.
"When something is not falsifiable it should be considered false, in most contexts."
Is the above sentence falsifiable? How do you examine the "should be" question with science?
If it is not falsifiable, should it be considered false, or is it an exception? How do you pick exceptions?
My two assertions about your sentence: (1) It is not falsifiable. (2) You consider it very useful.
Is the above sentence falsifiable? How do you examine the "should be" question with science?
If it is not falsifiable, should it be considered false, or is it an exception? How do you pick exceptions?
My two assertions about your sentence: (1) It is not falsifiable. (2) You consider it very useful.
Notice I tacked on a weasel phrase "in most contexts." I don't think there is a consensus about falsifiability, and I wasn't the one who brought it up. The person who did seemed to understand it backwards. Since Aristotle and Newton operated without the concept, I'm willing to shelve it.
Grandma going to heaven can be reduced to absurdity, and isn't very important, except as a typical line of bull.
Grandma going to heaven can be reduced to absurdity, and isn't very important, except as a typical line of bull.
It is falsifiable if you can find a single non falsifiable thing that would be useful / treated as true.
"Life has meaning."
Actually, this doesn't fit here, because "useful" implies "for a goal", and if there's no ultimate goal to life, then nothing is useful. So "life has meaning" is just another example of something that is only useful if true. Ah, well.
"Grandma went to heaven" is a statement of fact about a very specific matter that is either true or false.
The person uttering it has not seen, heard, smelled, or touched a single piece of evidence to verify this supposed fact.
Indeed, they're saying it either because they're sincerely repeating a myth they've heard since they were credulous children, because they want to mollify a grieving child's anguish, or both.
If you make a claim about the physical location of a human being, yet you have absolutely no evidence to bolster your claim, then you're making a claim that is not falsifiable and should be considered false.
The person uttering it has not seen, heard, smelled, or touched a single piece of evidence to verify this supposed fact.
Indeed, they're saying it either because they're sincerely repeating a myth they've heard since they were credulous children, because they want to mollify a grieving child's anguish, or both.
If you make a claim about the physical location of a human being, yet you have absolutely no evidence to bolster your claim, then you're making a claim that is not falsifiable and should be considered false.
I've always felt that that was an article of faith.
Ultimately, nothing is falsifiable because you have to make certain assumptions just to function.To truly throw out all assumptions would be to embrace solipsism. All that are left are various arbitrary criteria for belief.
Ultimately, nothing is falsifiable because you have to make certain assumptions just to function.To truly throw out all assumptions would be to embrace solipsism. All that are left are various arbitrary criteria for belief.
Sure it is. Unless you define heaven or other claims of paranormal phenomena so trivially ("that which cannot be perceived and has no effect") of course it can be falsified. If the soul is a thing, and heaven a place for it, then of course you can verify whether or not that thing is in that place.
We may not yet have built the instrument that can detect souls, or engineered the successor beings that can perceive heaven, or been visited by the magician whose wand can open the door to it, but those are mere practical and technological considerations, not propositional ones.
Religion can, and has, made many falsifiable claims (and they have all been falsified, when put to the test). The ones we haven't got around to yet are no different. From a scientific perspective there's no inherent difference between paranormal claims made in the context of a centuries-old religion and those made in the context of a psychic snake oil salesman.
The separation between "matters of faith" and "matters of science" is itself a lie we tell ourselves and each other so we can tolerate living in a world populated by irrational people and irrational beliefs. But it's artifice, there's no reason any actual phenomenon can't be investigated "scientifically."
We may not yet have built the instrument that can detect souls, or engineered the successor beings that can perceive heaven, or been visited by the magician whose wand can open the door to it, but those are mere practical and technological considerations, not propositional ones.
Religion can, and has, made many falsifiable claims (and they have all been falsified, when put to the test). The ones we haven't got around to yet are no different. From a scientific perspective there's no inherent difference between paranormal claims made in the context of a centuries-old religion and those made in the context of a psychic snake oil salesman.
The separation between "matters of faith" and "matters of science" is itself a lie we tell ourselves and each other so we can tolerate living in a world populated by irrational people and irrational beliefs. But it's artifice, there's no reason any actual phenomenon can't be investigated "scientifically."
"Grandma went to heaven" may be a kind of lie, it depends on the context.
If a priest says to me (a 36 yo adult) that "Grandma went to heaven" it clearly is not a lie. I know that the priest is speaking from faith, and I am able to evaluate the truthfulness of his statement in context. In this case, it's implied that the statement means "I have deep religious faith that grandma is in heaven." This doesn't need to be spelled out.
However, if a priest says this to a small child, it becomes a kind of lie unless the priest explains the difference between faith and fact. If Itell my son that "France is in Europe, catepillars become butterflies, and Grandma went to heaven", I have pretty much lied to my kid, even if I deeply believe that all statements are true.
If a priest says to me (a 36 yo adult) that "Grandma went to heaven" it clearly is not a lie. I know that the priest is speaking from faith, and I am able to evaluate the truthfulness of his statement in context. In this case, it's implied that the statement means "I have deep religious faith that grandma is in heaven." This doesn't need to be spelled out.
However, if a priest says this to a small child, it becomes a kind of lie unless the priest explains the difference between faith and fact. If Itell my son that "France is in Europe, catepillars become butterflies, and Grandma went to heaven", I have pretty much lied to my kid, even if I deeply believe that all statements are true.
Welcome to the mirror world, where a lie isn't a lie if you put the word "faith" in front of it! Is this kinda like "Simon Says"? Up is down -- oops, matter of faith, so I'm okay! Burning heretics is good for the human race -- oh, wait, I actually mean that one. Sorry, Galileo...
"Let those of us who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the coming of the semantic web, or other supernatural phenomena believe what we want to believe."
Bruce, you can't stay stuff like that while I'm at work - I've got people around me who can hear me laughing!
Bruce, you can't stay stuff like that while I'm at work - I've got people around me who can hear me laughing!
All I have at work is a parrot. And the parrot is now cackling with laughter.
Ah the semantic web, as it was for told in the Book of Revelations.
I guess that makes me a modern theologian when I say that the semantic web is already here, it's just not as impressive and dramatic as people seem to expect it to be.
This is the first PG article I've felt a certain way about, which is that its scope exceeded my interest. I may yet read the rest of it soon. But fundamentally, I must point this out:
> By 15 I was convinced the world was corrupt from end to end. That's why movies like The Matrix have such resonance. Every kid grows up in a fake world.
Or the classic example, The Catcher in the Rye. Adolescents are caught between a desire for authentic reality and romantic idealism. They profess to want the former but seek the latter.
> By 15 I was convinced the world was corrupt from end to end. That's why movies like The Matrix have such resonance. Every kid grows up in a fake world.
Or the classic example, The Catcher in the Rye. Adolescents are caught between a desire for authentic reality and romantic idealism. They profess to want the former but seek the latter.
After living in suburbia for 23 years (and finally getting out this month, thank "God") I can attest to most of this. One thing PG doesn't mention is that some people flat never grow out of the idyllic view of the world that this segregated space presents OR become so impossibly jaded that they're damaged beyond all repair.
One friend of mine managed to have both of these happen. Not only does he have an idyllic view of the world, at least in how it _should_ be, but he's also become extremely jaded, having found out that most of his views are wrong (despite still clinging to them). These are often entirely contradictory. For example, he believes in true love and that if you _truly_ love someone you could never, ever do anything to hurt them. On the other hand, he's seen enough relationships and enough cheating and other "nastiness" that he's jaded to the point that he believes (his words) "all women are whores."
I would argue that you have less of a chance of becoming extremely jaded if you grow up in a societal sub-section that neither attempts to hide the gruesome truths of the world from youth nor presents them on every street corner. In my humble opinion, suburbia is too close to the former extreme.
One friend of mine managed to have both of these happen. Not only does he have an idyllic view of the world, at least in how it _should_ be, but he's also become extremely jaded, having found out that most of his views are wrong (despite still clinging to them). These are often entirely contradictory. For example, he believes in true love and that if you _truly_ love someone you could never, ever do anything to hurt them. On the other hand, he's seen enough relationships and enough cheating and other "nastiness" that he's jaded to the point that he believes (his words) "all women are whores."
I would argue that you have less of a chance of becoming extremely jaded if you grow up in a societal sub-section that neither attempts to hide the gruesome truths of the world from youth nor presents them on every street corner. In my humble opinion, suburbia is too close to the former extreme.
I think the statement "as a rule people planning to go into teaching rank academically near the bottom of the college population" should really have a source to back it up.
See for example http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/philo/GRE%20Scores%20by%20Intended...
teachers seem solidly in the middle for the three groups.
This brings up something interesting, as a group, we like to think of ourselves as above average when compared to other disciplines, but Computer & Info. Sciences was comparable to Education. Consider that in many states, ALL teachers must go to graduate school, so many more of them are taking the GRE than Computer & Info. Sciences.
I suppose most schools with Computer Science grad programs probably also have a lite Information Science/Business program that would drag our scores down significantly. I know mine did.
This brings up something interesting, as a group, we like to think of ourselves as above average when compared to other disciplines, but Computer & Info. Sciences was comparable to Education. Consider that in many states, ALL teachers must go to graduate school, so many more of them are taking the GRE than Computer & Info. Sciences.
I suppose most schools with Computer Science grad programs probably also have a lite Information Science/Business program that would drag our scores down significantly. I know mine did.
'Education - something' seems to fill a lot of lower rungs.
I know that these scores were a semi-common meme around grad school when I was there. People wondered why philosophers/physicists/mathematicians gravitated towards each other, but it was silently suspected among a few of us that it was due to similar analytical ability. The results were even more pronounced when the logic test still existed.
I think that one shouldn't overemphasize the mean though. There's a lot to be said for the distribution -- in physics, the entire lower part of the curve gets weeded out. That doesn't seem to happen in CS. And philosophers learn to write arguments and navigate arcane vocabularies as a matter of course. Perhaps the math result is indicative of general ability, but they have to do logic, too.
I know that these scores were a semi-common meme around grad school when I was there. People wondered why philosophers/physicists/mathematicians gravitated towards each other, but it was silently suspected among a few of us that it was due to similar analytical ability. The results were even more pronounced when the logic test still existed.
I think that one shouldn't overemphasize the mean though. There's a lot to be said for the distribution -- in physics, the entire lower part of the curve gets weeded out. That doesn't seem to happen in CS. And philosophers learn to write arguments and navigate arcane vocabularies as a matter of course. Perhaps the math result is indicative of general ability, but they have to do logic, too.
Einstein, like many people, felt differently about religion at different times in his life, throughout which he maintained his Jewish identity.
Young Einstein's observation about religion cited in the article should probably be balanced by older Einstein's insight, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Young Einstein's observation about religion cited in the article should probably be balanced by older Einstein's insight, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
I find it funny, if also a bit sad, how strongly certain societal groups try to spin Einstein's views about religion decades after his death. For insight, I offer a bit more of his text around that tiny little quote that is so often used out of context.
"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes." (whole text is available at http://einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion2.html , and I strongly recommend it.)
This brings us back to the issue of lies. That quote is so often used to state that Einstein was religious later in life, while less than 2 paragraphs away, he completely eviscerates the idea of personal god. Obviously, someone here has told a lie of omission. Was it you, or the one who first told you about the quote? Does this, in any way, lessen your trust in the truthfulness of that source? Will you now be going around correcting other religious people when they use that quote to assert that Einstein believed in a god later in his life?
"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes." (whole text is available at http://einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion2.html , and I strongly recommend it.)
This brings us back to the issue of lies. That quote is so often used to state that Einstein was religious later in life, while less than 2 paragraphs away, he completely eviscerates the idea of personal god. Obviously, someone here has told a lie of omission. Was it you, or the one who first told you about the quote? Does this, in any way, lessen your trust in the truthfulness of that source? Will you now be going around correcting other religious people when they use that quote to assert that Einstein believed in a god later in his life?
"I find it funny, if also a bit sad"
"certain societal groups try to spin"
"tiny little quote that is so often used out of context"
"This brings us back to the issue of lies"
"so often used to state"
"completely eviscerates"
"Obviously, someone here has told a lie"
"Was it you"
"one who first told you"
"lessen your trust in the truthfulness"
"Will you now be going around correcting"
My nominee for "Bait of the Year". Nice try.
"certain societal groups try to spin"
"tiny little quote that is so often used out of context"
"This brings us back to the issue of lies"
"so often used to state"
"completely eviscerates"
"Obviously, someone here has told a lie"
"Was it you"
"one who first told you"
"lessen your trust in the truthfulness"
"Will you now be going around correcting"
My nominee for "Bait of the Year". Nice try.
I admit it, I just couldn't resist. The parent was a better bait, however, far more subtle. I'm not very good at this.
Still, as far as I know, I didn't actually lie, I just wrote the truth like a jackass. How do you classify that?
Still, as far as I know, I didn't actually lie, I just wrote the truth like a jackass. How do you classify that?
Or his written views as in this article I was reading this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscienc...
The essay's quote was used to help describe an experience many people go through, probably better than Paul could himself, and therefore was very appropriately chosen. Why would there have to be an artificial caveat? Later quotes would not be relevant to the time of life the essay was discussing.
Absolutely, he maintained his Jewish identity - the payload of beneficial cultural values - but he consistently rejected the religious practices (non-payload portions) - up until his choice of what type of funeral to have.
Here is a good quote from the article that recognizes the balance however:
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
The essay's quote was used to help describe an experience many people go through, probably better than Paul could himself, and therefore was very appropriately chosen. Why would there have to be an artificial caveat? Later quotes would not be relevant to the time of life the essay was discussing.
Absolutely, he maintained his Jewish identity - the payload of beneficial cultural values - but he consistently rejected the religious practices (non-payload portions) - up until his choice of what type of funeral to have.
Here is a good quote from the article that recognizes the balance however:
Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
"On a log scale I was midway between crib and globe."
That is a gem of a description of suburbia.
That is a gem of a description of suburbia.
When I was younger my Dad used to tell me roadkill was just sleeping. I remember accepting this for a while. One day, my Mom was driving behind someone who ran over a cat. The cat thrashed around in the road for a long time until it finally laid down, breathing very hard. My Mom told me to stay in the car and told me explicitly "you don't want to see what this cat goes through right now." I sat and contemplated what the cat must be going through and came to a point where I felt I understood it. The next year, when my neighbor killed herself, I was able to accept her passing with much more ease. IMO a gradual path to accepting death worked out well for me.
That's a key reason for many "lies" told to kids - let them deal with it when they're ready.
Precisely the point of the story. :)
Am I the only one here who disagrees almost completely with everything that is said? I don't mean to be disrespectful or offensive here. I'm just trying to get a feel for whether or not I'm the outcast in this corner of the Web.
What do you disagree with, and why? Dissent is fun to read about.
I sense that some of the disagreements that I have with Paul Graham are deeply fundamental and have to do with the fabric and meaning of our existence. First of all, I'm a religious person. This I have seen immediately qualifies me for ridicule from some on a forum such as this, as believing in God is seen as the logical equivalent to believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If you think I am totally deluded because of my beliefs, I would ask that you at least show respect for the fact that I am devoted to them and value them sincerely.
I'll pick one thing for now. In the part about sex and drugs, Paul mentions that parents' desires for instilling confidence in their children conflict with their desires to teach children that they shouldn't trust their own judgment.
Teaching a child to avoid doing the wrong or evil thing does not have to be a matter of making the child submit to the parents' will. If a parent teaches a child correct principles (and yes I believe that there are fundamentally correct and incorrect principles), than the child can understand these not only logically, but morally (or spiritually, whatever you prefer). A child can and will be tempted to dabble in things like illicit sex and drugs. However, if that child has been properly taught, then he or she will know that those temptations go against the child's better judgment. There are two forces at work in a child's mind here. One is the natural desire to take the easy way and receive the certain immediate pleasure, the other is the desire to be wiser and live by a higher standard. A parent can instill confidence in a child by showing them that they trust the child to make the right choices. If a child makes a wrong choice, it is not because they used their own judgment instead of their parents', it is because they failed to use their own judgment. They can often feel that they have betrayed the trust that was given them.
Many of you may dismiss this as sentimental hogwash or religious tripe. You may say that this judgment that I describe a child learning from his or her parents comes about through brainwashing and lies. I only ask you to keep an open mind and consider my point of view carefully. Many others share it, though maybe not here.
I'll pick one thing for now. In the part about sex and drugs, Paul mentions that parents' desires for instilling confidence in their children conflict with their desires to teach children that they shouldn't trust their own judgment.
Teaching a child to avoid doing the wrong or evil thing does not have to be a matter of making the child submit to the parents' will. If a parent teaches a child correct principles (and yes I believe that there are fundamentally correct and incorrect principles), than the child can understand these not only logically, but morally (or spiritually, whatever you prefer). A child can and will be tempted to dabble in things like illicit sex and drugs. However, if that child has been properly taught, then he or she will know that those temptations go against the child's better judgment. There are two forces at work in a child's mind here. One is the natural desire to take the easy way and receive the certain immediate pleasure, the other is the desire to be wiser and live by a higher standard. A parent can instill confidence in a child by showing them that they trust the child to make the right choices. If a child makes a wrong choice, it is not because they used their own judgment instead of their parents', it is because they failed to use their own judgment. They can often feel that they have betrayed the trust that was given them.
Many of you may dismiss this as sentimental hogwash or religious tripe. You may say that this judgment that I describe a child learning from his or her parents comes about through brainwashing and lies. I only ask you to keep an open mind and consider my point of view carefully. Many others share it, though maybe not here.
I think it is possible to have interesting and useful discussions about the nature of who and what we are that includes viewpoints that are religious, non-religious and 'other'. Message boards seem to be very bad places for them.
These are the sorts of things that people have put a lot of time and effort into thinking about and wrestling with - and there are very often emotional personal experiences tied up in those beliefs. On message boards, however, you usually just want to spend a short amount of time making relatively concise statements. Not the best format for getting across a complex worldview. This creates the "Amazon rating effect" where in order to influence the "overall results" you feel compelled to rate things either 5-stars or 1-star even though almost everyone holds 2-4 star beliefs.
These are the sorts of things that people have put a lot of time and effort into thinking about and wrestling with - and there are very often emotional personal experiences tied up in those beliefs. On message boards, however, you usually just want to spend a short amount of time making relatively concise statements. Not the best format for getting across a complex worldview. This creates the "Amazon rating effect" where in order to influence the "overall results" you feel compelled to rate things either 5-stars or 1-star even though almost everyone holds 2-4 star beliefs.
Don't worry sofal, you're not alone. No matter how rational the scientific view of the world is, there is nothing in it that precludes the existence of a Higher Being that made it that way!
Also, whether you view the fundamental moral principles as divinely given or the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of society, they are critical for children to have.
Also, whether you view the fundamental moral principles as divinely given or the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of society, they are critical for children to have.
I agree that there is right and wrong, even though I'm not religious. I agree you can try to teach your children right and wrong. I disagree that just because you have good intentions and are trying to teach good values, that this means that what you are telling your children is truthful.
Most parents exaggerate the danger of sex, drugs (including alcohol), and video games (these have taken the place of rock and roll). There's a good reason for this - children probably wouldn't believe you if you said "Well, these can be good in moderation, but you don't have the judgement to tell what moderation is yet." So you might be lying with good intentions, and good effects, but you're still lying.
PS: I can understand how you'd feel attacked by someone implying a belief in God which you hold dear is equivalent to belief in the easter bunny. Instead, imagine that atheists see your belief in God as equivalent to belief in Ganesh, the Indian elephant god. If people tried to justify things in terms of the will of Ganesh, you would look at them somewhat strangely and would certainly not be swayed by their arguments. That's how atheists feel about your God: the way you feel about every other god but yours.
Most parents exaggerate the danger of sex, drugs (including alcohol), and video games (these have taken the place of rock and roll). There's a good reason for this - children probably wouldn't believe you if you said "Well, these can be good in moderation, but you don't have the judgement to tell what moderation is yet." So you might be lying with good intentions, and good effects, but you're still lying.
PS: I can understand how you'd feel attacked by someone implying a belief in God which you hold dear is equivalent to belief in the easter bunny. Instead, imagine that atheists see your belief in God as equivalent to belief in Ganesh, the Indian elephant god. If people tried to justify things in terms of the will of Ganesh, you would look at them somewhat strangely and would certainly not be swayed by their arguments. That's how atheists feel about your God: the way you feel about every other god but yours.
I can definitely see your points. Having good intentions and trying to teach good values is a good start, but it certainly doesn't imply that what you're teaching is truthful.
My dad was quite opposed to video games, and he even tried to get me to stop playing Quake after the shootings at Columbine (didn't work). Parents can misunderstand the uses and dangers of technology that never existed when they were young. It's easier for them to just dismiss the whole rather than try to understand. I think it's much better to stress the underlying values rather than the superficial rules or my own faulty interpretation of how to apply those values.
You're right that I would not be swayed by people justifying things in terms of the will of Ganesh. In fact, I would not be swayed by mere arguments in terms of the will of any supernatural being. I do not see gullibility as a positive trait of any human being, religious or not. I certainly don't expect to find it here, and that is a very good thing. If I justify my arguments in terms of the will of the god I believe in, then they are weak indeed. I think there is a common ground where we can reason with each other. My defensive comments about the anticipated anti-religious tone here were not appropriate or at least not in tune with the "common ground" feel.
My dad was quite opposed to video games, and he even tried to get me to stop playing Quake after the shootings at Columbine (didn't work). Parents can misunderstand the uses and dangers of technology that never existed when they were young. It's easier for them to just dismiss the whole rather than try to understand. I think it's much better to stress the underlying values rather than the superficial rules or my own faulty interpretation of how to apply those values.
You're right that I would not be swayed by people justifying things in terms of the will of Ganesh. In fact, I would not be swayed by mere arguments in terms of the will of any supernatural being. I do not see gullibility as a positive trait of any human being, religious or not. I certainly don't expect to find it here, and that is a very good thing. If I justify my arguments in terms of the will of the god I believe in, then they are weak indeed. I think there is a common ground where we can reason with each other. My defensive comments about the anticipated anti-religious tone here were not appropriate or at least not in tune with the "common ground" feel.
>f you think I am totally deluded because of my beliefs, I would ask that you at least show respect for the fact that I am devoted to them and value them sincerely.
Belief qua belief does not deserve respect. That is a self-serving myth told by believing people.
Belief qua belief does not deserve respect. That is a self-serving myth told by believing people.
How about civility? That's kind of like respect. Do I "deserve" any civility? If it's a myth and a self-serving lie to think that you should show respect for other people's beliefs, count me as one of the self-serving liars.
If I were having a conversation with a friend I would prefer Prrometheus' comments to yours. If I were told in response to something I said: "Belief qua belief does not deserve respect", first of all I would think "Alright! Half-baked Latin! That justifies the price we paid for these coffees!" but also I would be happy to be given the chance to advance the conversation. I would have been given a choice either to explain to my friend that I had not got my point across and to try again, or I could discuss why "belief qua belief" does deserve respect.
However, if the conversation began with my friend telling me "you will probably just dismiss this" and especially "many others believe this" I would feel insulted/dismissed.
However, if the conversation began with my friend telling me "you will probably just dismiss this" and especially "many others believe this" I would feel insulted/dismissed.
I think you're right about that. I've made a few defensive comments in anticipation of and in reaction to antagonism. It's pretty weak of me to be defensive and reactionary in that way. I didn't intend it to insult or dismiss others' viewpoints, yet it did. Thanks for that comment.
Thanks for taking that in the way I intended. I think it is understandable. A "discussion" on the net can feel like a hundred people quickly walking by and taking a quick potshot rather than a genuine exchange of opinions.
I'm actually not sure if I'm using the Latin 100% correctly, I've just seen it used in that context.
I think you should show respect for others' beliefs, at least to the extent of not ridiculing them, except when those beliefs are themselves the topic of conversation. In that case, there's really no way to have the discussion without being willing to disagree.
When talking about lies people tell each other, the beliefs are the topic, whether or not you believe they are lies or truths. If you don't want to have other people weigh your beliefs in such a context, I would suggest not mentioning them during such a discussion. There are beliefs I have which I'm sure most don't share, but which I don't feel the need to defend (anymore) at every opportunity. For example, as an atheist, I wouldn't typically go to a Christian forum and announce that God doesn't exist, unless I were prepared to have my views ridiculed.
Please don't take this as meaning I think you shouldn't discuss your beliefs in this thread, but only that I think you shouldn't try to influence others not to debate you honestly by implying they're being uncivil.
When talking about lies people tell each other, the beliefs are the topic, whether or not you believe they are lies or truths. If you don't want to have other people weigh your beliefs in such a context, I would suggest not mentioning them during such a discussion. There are beliefs I have which I'm sure most don't share, but which I don't feel the need to defend (anymore) at every opportunity. For example, as an atheist, I wouldn't typically go to a Christian forum and announce that God doesn't exist, unless I were prepared to have my views ridiculed.
Please don't take this as meaning I think you shouldn't discuss your beliefs in this thread, but only that I think you shouldn't try to influence others not to debate you honestly by implying they're being uncivil.
I agree that belief by itself does not deserve respect, and I upvoted you since your sentence addresses a common defense and should be highlighted.
But, no one has beliefs independent from any kind of cause or reason. So, just because someone says you should respect what they think because they believe it does not mean you should reject their belief due to bad justification.
But, no one has beliefs independent from any kind of cause or reason. So, just because someone says you should respect what they think because they believe it does not mean you should reject their belief due to bad justification.
Another issue is that religion is better understood when someone has grown up within one. It's alot easier to understand the lack of religion. The same things with a number of affections that the educated consider false, such as patriotism, true love, etc.
So, really, if a person keeps their child away from things like this so they can make an informed decision when they are older actually can limit their ability to make an informed decision.
So, really, if a person keeps their child away from things like this so they can make an informed decision when they are older actually can limit their ability to make an informed decision.
"...believing in God is seen as the logical equivalent to believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If you think I am totally deluded because of my beliefs, I would ask that you at least show respect for the fact that I am devoted to them and value them sincerely."
Do you not see the irony here? Would you be making this heartfelt plea for us to respect your beliefs if you did believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
Of course not -- because a belief doesn't deserve "respect", no matter sincerely its followers may value it. A belief deserves either support or skepticism.
The adherents of every belief, however, deserve respect. As do you. Part of that respect involves an honest description of how unlikely your beliefs are to be grounded in truth.
Do you not see the irony here? Would you be making this heartfelt plea for us to respect your beliefs if you did believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
Of course not -- because a belief doesn't deserve "respect", no matter sincerely its followers may value it. A belief deserves either support or skepticism.
The adherents of every belief, however, deserve respect. As do you. Part of that respect involves an honest description of how unlikely your beliefs are to be grounded in truth.
Given the nature of this essay I'm sure almost everyone disagrees with some aspects of it. The more interesting question is what you disagree with and why?
With an essay like this I think the problem is that most people will think that their knowledge of specific exceptions invalidate the generalized situation described.
With an essay like this I think the problem is that most people will think that their knowledge of specific exceptions invalidate the generalized situation described.
Can you be more specific about what you're disagreeing with?
I just noticed that I was very critical when I was reading the essay. Almost like having a higher standard for Paul's essays. I mostly agree with him, but I was trying to find holes in every sentence. I am not usually that critical.
edit:syntax error
"And after having spent their whole lives doing things that arbitrary and believing things that are false, and being regarded as odd by "outsiders" on that account, the cognitive dissonance pushing children to regard themselves as Xes must be enormous. "
Typo: I think there's suppose to be an "are" in "lives doing things that ARE arbitrary"
Typo: I think there's suppose to be an "are" in "lives doing things that ARE arbitrary"
Not necessarily. Being that pedantic and reading sentences that are not so well-edited is no fun at all.
Stephan Pinker has argued that swear words cause a involuntary negative emotional response similar to the slight of an angry face: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/stuff/media_articles/TNR...(1%20of%203)%20(print).htm
So parents not wanting there children to hear taboo words would seem to be better considered as another example of not wanting their children to exposed to negative/frightening experiences.
So parents not wanting there children to hear taboo words would seem to be better considered as another example of not wanting their children to exposed to negative/frightening experiences.
Fantastic read.
My son has always been allowed to swear as long as he chooses appropriate times and places. The words aren't particularly important since a person can be extremely rude and/or cruel without ever swearing. So instead he has been taught about about the taboo surrounding swearing as well as the importance of communication.
I want him to be a kid and have a good time and feel safe but I also want him to be realistic and prepared. Sometimes it's a balancing act but I never get lazy and tell him untruths.I've considered it but it seems a slippery slope. My son is also very perceptive so when things don't add up, he's quick to point it out.
At times I will give him a simple answer but I tell him it is a simple answer and that I can tell him more if he wants it, now or later. He usually opts for later. If I don't know something, I suggest that we google it and research it together.
I've read that adolescence is somewhat of a new thing (past 100 years or so) and that it is lasting longer and longer because of the way children are coddled by their parents while overwhelmed by options via media. It's my hope that by keeping things real that he will be able to utilize the world around him rather than become another indecisive, selfish, bored 25 year old years away from exiting their adolescence.
My son has always been allowed to swear as long as he chooses appropriate times and places. The words aren't particularly important since a person can be extremely rude and/or cruel without ever swearing. So instead he has been taught about about the taboo surrounding swearing as well as the importance of communication.
I want him to be a kid and have a good time and feel safe but I also want him to be realistic and prepared. Sometimes it's a balancing act but I never get lazy and tell him untruths.I've considered it but it seems a slippery slope. My son is also very perceptive so when things don't add up, he's quick to point it out.
At times I will give him a simple answer but I tell him it is a simple answer and that I can tell him more if he wants it, now or later. He usually opts for later. If I don't know something, I suggest that we google it and research it together.
I've read that adolescence is somewhat of a new thing (past 100 years or so) and that it is lasting longer and longer because of the way children are coddled by their parents while overwhelmed by options via media. It's my hope that by keeping things real that he will be able to utilize the world around him rather than become another indecisive, selfish, bored 25 year old years away from exiting their adolescence.
Protecting kids might be one of the reasons that people move to suburbia, but it's not the only reason. People like living in large houses and having land. That's exorbitantly expensive in the city for middle class families.
I also grew up in the suburbs, and I experienced the boredom pg talked about. There was nothing for me and my friends to do. I remember thinking that living in an urban environment would be unthinkably exotic.
I also grew up in the suburbs, and I experienced the boredom pg talked about. There was nothing for me and my friends to do. I remember thinking that living in an urban environment would be unthinkably exotic.
I think you may be overestimating the importance of geographic locale. Are suburban teenagers really less bored than urban teenagers? Or, for that matter, more engaged than rural teenagers? It's possible that some teenagers are just naturally bored, and that even in environment with plenty of activities, familiarity will eliminate enough that there is effectively nothing to do.
It's possible, as I'm merely talking from my own experience. But I clearly remember thinking that living in walking distance of commerce as any kind was exciting. There was a clear split in my mind between "places people lived" and "places people shopped." In the suburbs, there's not much for kids to do other than hang out at each other's houses.
Once we could drive, we spent a lot of time hanging out at Denny's and IHOP. I think, but obviously can not prove, that if we lived in walking distance of a downtown area, we would have been less bored.
Once we could drive, we spent a lot of time hanging out at Denny's and IHOP. I think, but obviously can not prove, that if we lived in walking distance of a downtown area, we would have been less bored.
I have a house in the suburbs but would rather live in the city, despite the smaller size I'd be able to afford. The biggest benefit for me to the suburban house is that my kids have room to run around and expend some energy in the winter when (or hottest part of the summer) when it's not so nice out. Other than that, I'd rather have a 2BR in the city with the kids in bunk beds.
Excellent essay!
Oddly enough, I'm learning more and more about the lies or mistruths I've grown into believe through the Internet. By reading blogs and content on other sites, I've realized that many things that I grew up thinking were the truth are actually urban legends, mistruths, or downright lies.
Part of that comes with a sense of sadness, but also part of it brings hope. Never have we had so much information available to us. Granted, much of it is crap (as the web is just a reflection of society) but it's pretty easy to find the 'right' answer if you look around.
What I found a little depressing is when you learn that someone you really respected (parent, teacher, clergy) was wrong or believed the same lie you did but didn't accept the truth. It's sort of like the phrase "event a lie becomes the truth" but more at the psychological level--as if it genuinely gets burned into ones brain.
I rarely will accept an article on its merits alone. For example, I typically will read user comments on news articles--it really puts things in perspective. So much as to sometimes change the entire view of a story.
Hopefully this will become commonplace and my kids will eventually grow up smarter than me--just not too soon :)
Oddly enough, I'm learning more and more about the lies or mistruths I've grown into believe through the Internet. By reading blogs and content on other sites, I've realized that many things that I grew up thinking were the truth are actually urban legends, mistruths, or downright lies.
Part of that comes with a sense of sadness, but also part of it brings hope. Never have we had so much information available to us. Granted, much of it is crap (as the web is just a reflection of society) but it's pretty easy to find the 'right' answer if you look around.
What I found a little depressing is when you learn that someone you really respected (parent, teacher, clergy) was wrong or believed the same lie you did but didn't accept the truth. It's sort of like the phrase "event a lie becomes the truth" but more at the psychological level--as if it genuinely gets burned into ones brain.
I rarely will accept an article on its merits alone. For example, I typically will read user comments on news articles--it really puts things in perspective. So much as to sometimes change the entire view of a story.
Hopefully this will become commonplace and my kids will eventually grow up smarter than me--just not too soon :)
I'm not sure that keeping kids innocent helps their learning. I've met many kids who have 'seen too much' by accepted standards and invariably they have been by far more emotionally mature than their peers, often enabling them to do well in terms of education.
Unless there are other factors at play, such as adverse social conditions, I think kids can handle more reality than we tend to believe.
Unless there are other factors at play, such as adverse social conditions, I think kids can handle more reality than we tend to believe.
I think this plus pg's point about "cuteness" is key - kids are ready to be emotionally mature, but parents don't want to let them have the experiences required to gain that maturity.
Exactly. The key is what pg hinted at, that parent's like their kids to be cute and innocent, which is usually self-serving if we are completely honest about it.
However, pg seems to assert that the alternative is being jaded and cynical, which does not fit with the children I know who have, for example, witnessed death up close and personal.
However, pg seems to assert that the alternative is being jaded and cynical, which does not fit with the children I know who have, for example, witnessed death up close and personal.
One of the kids I've met on IRC and admire, seems both very mature for his age (I think he's 14), incredibly clueful about adult stuff, and still very fun. He's been learning Perl, he jokes a lot, has had several girlfriends, and does fun stuff that I remember as a kid.
On the other hand, a certain underage girl I met on IRC (back when she turned 15), seems immature, very "heavy" for her age (i.e: takes life too seriously and does not have a lot of fun), and miserable. She's been raised as a Catholic and home-schooled and while a Linux geek, seemed very lonely. She also seemed to know the basic facts about sex, science, etc.
They are both from the USA although the boy is from Louisiana and the girl is from Pennsylvania. They both enjoyed this story of mine - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/human-hacking/ - that talks about high-school teenagers in early 2000's Los Angeles. The girl, on the other hand, thought that it was real and said that she would really like to meet one of the characters there. While I feel flattered that I'm a good writer, it has many non-realistic elements in it.
In any case, what I meant to say was that you have a point that people can stay innocent while knowing a lot. I believe I stayed innocent and a child at heart. By child at heart I don't mind that I'm immature, just that I'm excited about life, am not sarcastic, am open-minded, despise Fatalistic attitudes (including PG's), and believe that people are essentially good. However, I feel that I've matured and became "wiser" and more knowledgeable as time went by, which is why I don't wish to be younger.
So I think it's not knowledge that makes us less innocent, but rather how we conceive it. A programmer/translator friend I talked to claimed that open-source and the Creative Commons were "Socialism". I tried to explain to him that by sharing intellectual artworks, including code, you didn't really became deprived of them, like Marxism suggests of switching from "Everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs." . It didn't convince him and he insisted it was still sacrificing profits.
Eventually, I settled it with the other Perl mongers by saying that it doesn't matter if open-source is communism or socialism or whatever, as long as we all know and agree that it is good for the people.
I'm the kind of person, who like a child believes that rules and conventions are not set in stone and should be analysed, challenged, and possibly disobeyed. As such, I am anti-conformist, write screenplays for fun (including Friends and Star Trek fan art), write controversial essays, which challenge things that are considered truisms, and also often pass negative (but still constructive) criticism on people (probably privately) about negative patterns I have detected in them, so hopefully they'll improve.
I have seen and heard of a lot of evil things, including people who treated me with cruelty, but I know that most people are and want to be good. Despite being an Israeli, I even met several Iranians online who were very friendly, and a Pakistani-in-origin, who while kinda implied that Israel was the mortal enemy of Pakistan, still treated me with respect, and was also kind enough to copy-edit one of my essays, and give me many useful corrections.
On the other hand, a certain underage girl I met on IRC (back when she turned 15), seems immature, very "heavy" for her age (i.e: takes life too seriously and does not have a lot of fun), and miserable. She's been raised as a Catholic and home-schooled and while a Linux geek, seemed very lonely. She also seemed to know the basic facts about sex, science, etc.
They are both from the USA although the boy is from Louisiana and the girl is from Pennsylvania. They both enjoyed this story of mine - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/human-hacking/ - that talks about high-school teenagers in early 2000's Los Angeles. The girl, on the other hand, thought that it was real and said that she would really like to meet one of the characters there. While I feel flattered that I'm a good writer, it has many non-realistic elements in it.
In any case, what I meant to say was that you have a point that people can stay innocent while knowing a lot. I believe I stayed innocent and a child at heart. By child at heart I don't mind that I'm immature, just that I'm excited about life, am not sarcastic, am open-minded, despise Fatalistic attitudes (including PG's), and believe that people are essentially good. However, I feel that I've matured and became "wiser" and more knowledgeable as time went by, which is why I don't wish to be younger.
So I think it's not knowledge that makes us less innocent, but rather how we conceive it. A programmer/translator friend I talked to claimed that open-source and the Creative Commons were "Socialism". I tried to explain to him that by sharing intellectual artworks, including code, you didn't really became deprived of them, like Marxism suggests of switching from "Everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs." . It didn't convince him and he insisted it was still sacrificing profits.
Eventually, I settled it with the other Perl mongers by saying that it doesn't matter if open-source is communism or socialism or whatever, as long as we all know and agree that it is good for the people.
I'm the kind of person, who like a child believes that rules and conventions are not set in stone and should be analysed, challenged, and possibly disobeyed. As such, I am anti-conformist, write screenplays for fun (including Friends and Star Trek fan art), write controversial essays, which challenge things that are considered truisms, and also often pass negative (but still constructive) criticism on people (probably privately) about negative patterns I have detected in them, so hopefully they'll improve.
I have seen and heard of a lot of evil things, including people who treated me with cruelty, but I know that most people are and want to be good. Despite being an Israeli, I even met several Iranians online who were very friendly, and a Pakistani-in-origin, who while kinda implied that Israel was the mortal enemy of Pakistan, still treated me with respect, and was also kind enough to copy-edit one of my essays, and give me many useful corrections.
I was not lied to in this fashion. I was raised a Quaker, and we don't lie.
My parents told me about sex, prostitutes and drugs from a young age (5?). They told me sex and drugs were fun, but even better for your soul if you waited for the right person in life.
Having only had a sexual relationship with my wife, I can't say if this is true, but it certainly feels true. At any rate, because of their honesty I didn't feel like the world conspired against me, instead I felt that it trusted me and relied upon me to make correct decisions.
Paul - I'm surprised at you to put this model forward as the correct model. Why can't we create children better able to make their own judgements by being more honest and asking more of them?
Another complaint: people may move out of the city because they hate the city. I would prefer to live in the woods (and I grew up there). I never felt it was stale, I never felt trapped or bored. Working in NYC now, I am counting the hours until I can move back to somewhere beautiful.
My parents told me about sex, prostitutes and drugs from a young age (5?). They told me sex and drugs were fun, but even better for your soul if you waited for the right person in life.
Having only had a sexual relationship with my wife, I can't say if this is true, but it certainly feels true. At any rate, because of their honesty I didn't feel like the world conspired against me, instead I felt that it trusted me and relied upon me to make correct decisions.
Paul - I'm surprised at you to put this model forward as the correct model. Why can't we create children better able to make their own judgements by being more honest and asking more of them?
Another complaint: people may move out of the city because they hate the city. I would prefer to live in the woods (and I grew up there). I never felt it was stale, I never felt trapped or bored. Working in NYC now, I am counting the hours until I can move back to somewhere beautiful.
I hate the city(living)too.I live in a eurpean suburb-village, PG talks about american suburbs. Every person I know from america tells me the same America lacks social spaces. Solution is not city center through.
Cities are unnatural,noise,too much people,stress. I like going into cities when I need, but not living.
Cities are unnatural,noise,too much people,stress. I like going into cities when I need, but not living.
Wow! Great article. I was getting tired of all of the articles PG wrote about startups - if you ask me, that was too much of a good-but-not-very-good-thing.
If I were to start a startup, I would find some of Paul Graham's advice useful, but also, due to its size, it became a very big and incoherent potato mash in my head. :-)
So I hope to see more essays and articles by Graham about non-startup stuff. I have some good ideas for open-source-but-commercial ventures - not all of them FOSS related, and may eventually become a "professional" webmaster/blogger (= someone who makes a living out of it). But still I find that I'd rather hear general software management and software-development advice and philosophy than something specific to startups.
So I'm glad PG is back to more diverse essaying and wish him the best of luck.
If I were to start a startup, I would find some of Paul Graham's advice useful, but also, due to its size, it became a very big and incoherent potato mash in my head. :-)
So I hope to see more essays and articles by Graham about non-startup stuff. I have some good ideas for open-source-but-commercial ventures - not all of them FOSS related, and may eventually become a "professional" webmaster/blogger (= someone who makes a living out of it). But still I find that I'd rather hear general software management and software-development advice and philosophy than something specific to startups.
So I'm glad PG is back to more diverse essaying and wish him the best of luck.
I respectfully disagree with your comment about the Thanksgiving Dinner lie. You stated, "that was probably the best way to handle a frightened 10 year old."
In my experience a far better way would be to tell the truth, "I don't know if the Turkey wanted to die." Then, the parents could parent the child and explain how everything needs to eat to live. It was a perfect opportunity for the parents to illustrate why they purchase certain brands of Turkey, don't eat hot-dogs, are vegetarian, go hunting, etc.
Would your friend have spoken the same lie if he had been alone with his child?
It is a parent's job to judiciously teach their children, not to lie when they don't know how to teach or find it inconvenient to do so.
In my experience a far better way would be to tell the truth, "I don't know if the Turkey wanted to die." Then, the parents could parent the child and explain how everything needs to eat to live. It was a perfect opportunity for the parents to illustrate why they purchase certain brands of Turkey, don't eat hot-dogs, are vegetarian, go hunting, etc.
Would your friend have spoken the same lie if he had been alone with his child?
It is a parent's job to judiciously teach their children, not to lie when they don't know how to teach or find it inconvenient to do so.
I was talking about my mother calming my fears after watching the documentary about pollution, not the Thanksgiving lie.
This resonates with me pretty strongly, as does “Why Nerds Are Unpopular”. Both match my experience as a teen (back in the 1970s) and my observation since. While I’ve written a little about some of the same phenomena, these two essays do an astounding job of documenting and explaining what I had not processed as thoroughly.
One thing struck me, though. Several motivations for lying to teens about sex are cited, and I certainly agree that those motivations are important. However, I was surprised that an important one was overlooked, since it figures so prominently in “Why Nerds Are Unpopular”.
In that essay, the argument is made that teens are penned up in school because they no longer have a place in a modern economy. Since a teen can’t support a family, preventing sex, the biological purpose of which is to, well, start a family, becomes a priority. So there may be a pragmatic reason as well as sentimental ones for lying about sex.
NB: I’m not one of those “abstinence-only” types; I’m a firm believer in the old military adage that one should never give orders that will not be obeyed and cannot be enforced. (I agree with the prescription given in the essay, to give teens the straight dope, but to impress on them that their judgment may not always be trustworthy.) Abstinence certainly is effective at preventing conception, though, and when loaded with cultural and sentimental baggage to give it more power, the development of such a fundamental dissonance between society and biology makes perfect sense.
One thing struck me, though. Several motivations for lying to teens about sex are cited, and I certainly agree that those motivations are important. However, I was surprised that an important one was overlooked, since it figures so prominently in “Why Nerds Are Unpopular”.
In that essay, the argument is made that teens are penned up in school because they no longer have a place in a modern economy. Since a teen can’t support a family, preventing sex, the biological purpose of which is to, well, start a family, becomes a priority. So there may be a pragmatic reason as well as sentimental ones for lying about sex.
NB: I’m not one of those “abstinence-only” types; I’m a firm believer in the old military adage that one should never give orders that will not be obeyed and cannot be enforced. (I agree with the prescription given in the essay, to give teens the straight dope, but to impress on them that their judgment may not always be trustworthy.) Abstinence certainly is effective at preventing conception, though, and when loaded with cultural and sentimental baggage to give it more power, the development of such a fundamental dissonance between society and biology makes perfect sense.
I enjoyed reading this. I specifically searched for anything pertaining to "when parents lie to kids", and this popped up. I do not have children (by choice), and I have completed a master in education, so I have researched learning theory. I see my sister and her husband lying to their children, and I abhor such practice; children are merely young adults who need to learn efficiently and effectively, so that they may comprehend what it takes to survive independently. I see your point about keeping reality from children until they are learned enough to make their own determinations about when enough is enough with respect to education, yet I still believe that, regardless of the measure of hardened reality to which they are exposed, they are ultimately responsible for their own learning motivation, save for the very early prompts that parents are responsible for instilling in them during the behaviorism years.
I have believed for many years that lying to children about Santa Claus, among other things, causes children to distrust parents and other adults, which is likely not intended by parents, but which is a very real effect of misguiding their concepts by deceit so early. To effectuate a lifelong positive result, parents and teachers should strive to ALWAYS tell the truth, so that the child (young adult) will NOT be shocked later in life by simple, inevitable realities such as death, disease, or inconsistencies in human behaviors. The truth is ALWAYS the best policy at any age. It is too bad that parents are so selfish as to hope or believe that they are doing their children favors by false lights, false hopes, and false expressions. If the truth sets us free, then what are parents doing when they lie, but creating a virtual prison for their offspring?
I have believed for many years that lying to children about Santa Claus, among other things, causes children to distrust parents and other adults, which is likely not intended by parents, but which is a very real effect of misguiding their concepts by deceit so early. To effectuate a lifelong positive result, parents and teachers should strive to ALWAYS tell the truth, so that the child (young adult) will NOT be shocked later in life by simple, inevitable realities such as death, disease, or inconsistencies in human behaviors. The truth is ALWAYS the best policy at any age. It is too bad that parents are so selfish as to hope or believe that they are doing their children favors by false lights, false hopes, and false expressions. If the truth sets us free, then what are parents doing when they lie, but creating a virtual prison for their offspring?
In general, I really liked this article, and found it thought-provoking.
However, saying that Marie Curie was included in the science books just because she was a woman is insulting and untrue. She was one of the all time greats--the only person besides Linus Pauling to win not one, but TWO Nobel Prizes. Despite extremely meager resources, and at great personal cost, she discovered, isolated, and named two new radioactive elements, polonium and radium. She also discovered thorium, but didn't get official credit for it. She discovered radiation therapy for cancer. Her work laid the foundation for the the work of Max Planck and Niels Bohr and the nuclear age, both its helpful and harmful aspects. Without her work, there would have been no atom bomb, and no nuclear energy. Her influence is vastly important and far-reaching.
Parents don't want their children to swear because it's vulgar and coarse. Well-bred people used not to swear at all, but it has become increasingly common among people of all backgrounds.
However, saying that Marie Curie was included in the science books just because she was a woman is insulting and untrue. She was one of the all time greats--the only person besides Linus Pauling to win not one, but TWO Nobel Prizes. Despite extremely meager resources, and at great personal cost, she discovered, isolated, and named two new radioactive elements, polonium and radium. She also discovered thorium, but didn't get official credit for it. She discovered radiation therapy for cancer. Her work laid the foundation for the the work of Max Planck and Niels Bohr and the nuclear age, both its helpful and harmful aspects. Without her work, there would have been no atom bomb, and no nuclear energy. Her influence is vastly important and far-reaching.
Parents don't want their children to swear because it's vulgar and coarse. Well-bred people used not to swear at all, but it has become increasingly common among people of all backgrounds.
To adress the subject of religion...
"You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true." Why not? Unlike virtually every other religion, the more educated a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) is, the more active in their religion they tend to be. I choose to affiliate myself with that group because they seemed to be the most rational of all the other religions -- at no point did they ever say something which seemed silly like, "What, you think it doesn't make sense? But that's the beauty of it!" I was given a challenge. Read the Book of Mormon then pray about it. If there was a God, then I would receive some sort of response. If there wasn't a God, then I wouldn't receive a response. Formulate a hypothesis -- establish it as a question. Make a prediction. Experiment and see whether the prediction was correct -- did the hypothesis hold together? I believe that God is real, miracles still happen, etc.
"You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true." Why not? Unlike virtually every other religion, the more educated a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) is, the more active in their religion they tend to be. I choose to affiliate myself with that group because they seemed to be the most rational of all the other religions -- at no point did they ever say something which seemed silly like, "What, you think it doesn't make sense? But that's the beauty of it!" I was given a challenge. Read the Book of Mormon then pray about it. If there was a God, then I would receive some sort of response. If there wasn't a God, then I wouldn't receive a response. Formulate a hypothesis -- establish it as a question. Make a prediction. Experiment and see whether the prediction was correct -- did the hypothesis hold together? I believe that God is real, miracles still happen, etc.
Unlike most of you, I dislike this essay. I think it is cynical, hard, jaded, and in many cases, ironically full of untruths. As a public school teacher, the part that outraged me was the following quote: "The sad fact is, US public school teachers don't generally understand the stuff they're teaching very well. There are some sterling exceptions, but as a rule people planning to go into teaching rank academically near the bottom of the college population." At my school, most of our teachers were at the very top of our college populations, ranking in the top 5% of our graduating classes. The exceptions (the ones who went into teaching because they had no other options and thought it was "easy") are few and far between. Most of us have master's degrees, and several have doctorate's. To say that most teachers do not know their subjects well is simply untrue; sure, there are exceptions, but there are engineers, journalists, doctors, and authors who are only subpar. In an essay arguing for the truth, this author has lost credibility as a speaker of the truth.
pg -- do you have to work hard to remember particular conversations from your childhood? (E.g. in the 6th grade when your father contradicted your teacher.)
I can only seem to remember events related to girls, programming, and church. I don't remember particular conversations I had with my parents or teachers. Conversations with my favorite grandfather seem to stick out.
It seems like I should sit down and try to remember past realizations and conversations. I've never explicitly tried that.
I can only seem to remember events related to girls, programming, and church. I don't remember particular conversations I had with my parents or teachers. Conversations with my favorite grandfather seem to stick out.
It seems like I should sit down and try to remember past realizations and conversations. I've never explicitly tried that.
I can't remember dialogue, generally. What I seem to be able to remember best are things that surprised me. What I remember about that conversation was simply my surprise at my father contradicting a teacher. But I don't remember what about, for example, and I only know it was 6th grade because I remember the teacher.
"It's not enough to consider your mind a blank slate. You have to consciously erase it."
I really liked this point, and I feel its a good way to sum up the points Paul made. I think at times we underestimate the impact of socialization (work, school etc.) and we mentally seal off certain doors (opportunities) to mesh with the norms. With all the noise that we are absorbing, this notion of reconsidering even some of the more 'basic' assumptions becomes all the more important.
I really liked this point, and I feel its a good way to sum up the points Paul made. I think at times we underestimate the impact of socialization (work, school etc.) and we mentally seal off certain doors (opportunities) to mesh with the norms. With all the noise that we are absorbing, this notion of reconsidering even some of the more 'basic' assumptions becomes all the more important.
"You shouldn't put the blame on one parent, because divorce is never only one person's fault. [8]
Really? When a man runs off with his secretary, is it always partly his wife's fault?"
YES, and for TWO reasons: 1. If a man (or woman) runs away with another woman (or man) it is because the primary relationship has a fault and a severe one. No person, male or female, gives up a relationship just like that. I am not talking about a "one night stand" which might come out of a situation, sensation, ..., because that will never endanger a relationship. But if a relationship is so weak that one partner seeks love in a different person, it is because he cannot get it in his primary relationship any more, although he would like to. 2. If the woman (or man) that is left behind is no more willing to recover the old relationship it is certainly her or his fault as well. Someone who really loves her or his partner is always able to get him or her back. There is an old saying that the lover has never a chance against the married partner and that is true. Actually, I know all this from own experience, not from theory !
YES, and for TWO reasons: 1. If a man (or woman) runs away with another woman (or man) it is because the primary relationship has a fault and a severe one. No person, male or female, gives up a relationship just like that. I am not talking about a "one night stand" which might come out of a situation, sensation, ..., because that will never endanger a relationship. But if a relationship is so weak that one partner seeks love in a different person, it is because he cannot get it in his primary relationship any more, although he would like to. 2. If the woman (or man) that is left behind is no more willing to recover the old relationship it is certainly her or his fault as well. Someone who really loves her or his partner is always able to get him or her back. There is an old saying that the lover has never a chance against the married partner and that is true. Actually, I know all this from own experience, not from theory !
I find the idea of innocence to be interesting. In a child it seems to be a lack of awareness of the consequences of their own actions.
This is brilliantly illustrated by the TV show "the Simpson's" where the roles of Bart and Homer are reversed for the most part. Bart generally understands the consequences of his actions whereas Homer doesn't have a clue. Homer is the innocent in this case.
I find this definition of "child-like" innocence pretty robust, it seems to fit with most of my experiences. Knowlege is what destroys this form of innocence, not evil, so it explains a lot of the lies that we tell. Adults vicariously enjoy the hope of their children and fear that telling them the "truth" will spoil the vision.
With my kids (I have 5 kids and 2 grandkids) I have tried to be as honest as possible but when you understand the "truth" to be very complex it becomes difficult to provide a simplified view that a child can fully understand (especially when you know you don't fully understand it either). A partially understood truth may be as misleading as an out-and-out lie but more difficult to unravel.
Another reason adults like to preserve the "innocence" of their children is that it reminds them of when they had hope and helps them relive or rediscover it.
This is brilliantly illustrated by the TV show "the Simpson's" where the roles of Bart and Homer are reversed for the most part. Bart generally understands the consequences of his actions whereas Homer doesn't have a clue. Homer is the innocent in this case.
I find this definition of "child-like" innocence pretty robust, it seems to fit with most of my experiences. Knowlege is what destroys this form of innocence, not evil, so it explains a lot of the lies that we tell. Adults vicariously enjoy the hope of their children and fear that telling them the "truth" will spoil the vision.
With my kids (I have 5 kids and 2 grandkids) I have tried to be as honest as possible but when you understand the "truth" to be very complex it becomes difficult to provide a simplified view that a child can fully understand (especially when you know you don't fully understand it either). A partially understood truth may be as misleading as an out-and-out lie but more difficult to unravel.
Another reason adults like to preserve the "innocence" of their children is that it reminds them of when they had hope and helps them relive or rediscover it.
I think that it's only a lie to tell a child that they are an X if you also lead them to believe that this is a lifelong identity.
For example, I don't mind telling children born in the US that they are American children. They might grow up, move to another country, and change their citizenship (my mother knows people who have done this). So saying that they're American children is simply a description of their current state.
This would only be a lie if you let them grow up with the notion that they should stay Americans all their lives and that it would be somehow wrong to ever switch nationalities. Indeed, I imagine that many Americans would consider this unpatriotic and probably to some extent a betrayal. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The same thing is true for religion. Obviously many (if not most) religious groups don't bring children up to question their beliefs and decide for themselves what they believe and whether they want to belong to any religious group at all. But some do, and so I think it's possible to tell a child that they are a Christian child or a Muslim child or an atheist child without it being a lie. Just like telling them that they're an American child, it can simply be a description of their current state,
For example, I don't mind telling children born in the US that they are American children. They might grow up, move to another country, and change their citizenship (my mother knows people who have done this). So saying that they're American children is simply a description of their current state.
This would only be a lie if you let them grow up with the notion that they should stay Americans all their lives and that it would be somehow wrong to ever switch nationalities. Indeed, I imagine that many Americans would consider this unpatriotic and probably to some extent a betrayal. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The same thing is true for religion. Obviously many (if not most) religious groups don't bring children up to question their beliefs and decide for themselves what they believe and whether they want to belong to any religious group at all. But some do, and so I think it's possible to tell a child that they are a Christian child or a Muslim child or an atheist child without it being a lie. Just like telling them that they're an American child, it can simply be a description of their current state,
Having grown up in Manhattan myself, pg's description of kids who "seemed to have lost their virginity at an average of about 14 and by college had tried more drugs than I'd even heard of" doesn't ring particularly true for me. I knew some people like that, but I knew far more who were nothing like that. I don't mean to imply that the people I knew were a representative sample, I'm just not convinced the people he knew were either.
"It's obvious now that he was on the list because he was black (and for that matter that Marie Curie was on it because she was a woman), but as a kid I was confused for years about him. I wonder if it wouldn't have been better just to tell us the truth: that there weren't any famous black scientists. Ranking George Washington Carver with Einstein misled us not only about science, but about the obstacles blacks faced in his time."
(I would comment about Curie but someone already did)
Not sure if any school I know of raises GWC on the same pedestal as Einstein. For better or for worse, most people in America regard Einstein as one of the smartest people that ever lived, and the same is definitely not true for Carver.
" Public school textbooks represent a compromise between what various powerful groups want kids to be told. The lies are rarely overt. Usually they consist either of omissions or of over-emphasizing certain topics at the expense of others."
What powerful groups in America wanted a black scientist to be seen on the same level as Einstein? Carver is usually seen as a very smart black man, which if anything, belittles blacks as if this was the one and only black who could achieve anything in an advanced field.
(I would comment about Curie but someone already did)
Not sure if any school I know of raises GWC on the same pedestal as Einstein. For better or for worse, most people in America regard Einstein as one of the smartest people that ever lived, and the same is definitely not true for Carver.
" Public school textbooks represent a compromise between what various powerful groups want kids to be told. The lies are rarely overt. Usually they consist either of omissions or of over-emphasizing certain topics at the expense of others."
What powerful groups in America wanted a black scientist to be seen on the same level as Einstein? Carver is usually seen as a very smart black man, which if anything, belittles blacks as if this was the one and only black who could achieve anything in an advanced field.
During Black History Month, children will learn about nothing but black scientists. As far as I can recall, the most important one did something with blood types.
>What powerful groups in America wanted a black scientist to be seen on the same level as Einstein?
Identity politics runs very strong in classrooms, which tend to be politically controlled by left-wing teacher's unions. I've spent years of my life learning about the lives of various Indian tribes, for example.
>What powerful groups in America wanted a black scientist to be seen on the same level as Einstein?
Identity politics runs very strong in classrooms, which tend to be politically controlled by left-wing teacher's unions. I've spent years of my life learning about the lives of various Indian tribes, for example.
not any school I went to did we spend BHM learning about black scientists.
That's a very broad brush your painting, and I wonder if you have some actual data to back that statement up, other than you personal experiences learning about Native Americans.
That's a very broad brush your painting, and I wonder if you have some actual data to back that statement up, other than you personal experiences learning about Native Americans.
Well, this is just anecdote, but I'm a 25-year old from North Carolina where in elementary school we did spend at least part of February (Black History Month) doing a unit on GWC.
I suspect a black scientist was included not because of powerful groups but because of guilt on the part of teachers who wanted to appear racially-sensitive.
I remember that as a kid, between PBS and the racial sensitivity of my all-white suburban school, I lived in complete terror of doing or saying something that could be seen as racist.
I remember that as a kid, between PBS and the racial sensitivity of my all-white suburban school, I lived in complete terror of doing or saying something that could be seen as racist.
Really? I went to a predominantly white suburbia school, and have plenty of friends who use the term ¨dirty jew¨ as a derogatory comment without second thought. Totally Acceptable.
I don´t know if ya were livin in a utopia, but I imagine racism is higher with people forced to pretend PC.
I still don´t understand why PG is taking his school experiences and painting that brush as what all schools are like, but apparently quite a few here have had the same experiences ...
I don´t know if ya were livin in a utopia, but I imagine racism is higher with people forced to pretend PC.
I still don´t understand why PG is taking his school experiences and painting that brush as what all schools are like, but apparently quite a few here have had the same experiences ...
Exposing children to too much within a short time - which tends to happen in their teenage years as they become more mature - does overwhelm children. They may not have the mental tools and the feeling of not being able to comprehend or cope may give rise to negative emotions - guilt and insecurity. In the pre-teens and early teems, how information is presented to the child depends on the parents. The influence of the school, peer pressure, etc starts taking over pretty soon. While keeping the children away from everything in a sterile environment is not correct, there is nothing wrong in choosing the right time and place to help them learn. Finding out their reactions to various things, and explaining there could be many ways to approach something of which some ways are better than others, etc. takes time, effort and patience. As an involved, committed and hopefully intelligent parent, there are times when I have to resort to saying "Oh, thats a bigge thing - you will learn it soon!". To me that is not a lie - that is like saying first learn your A, B, C. then you can read that very colorful picture book and enjoy it.
Mr. Graham,
Thanks for writing such a questioning essay. I have two young boys and have spent a lot of time thinking about how my wife (an African-American physician) and myself (a European-descended American evolutionary biologist) are going to say to them about sex and drugs and death. My wife and I usually resolve these conversations by saying that we won't have to have "the talk" because our sons will be hearing about birth control from the time of their own birth. So far that's been true. Now that my older son can talk, I'm surprised about the stuff that I feel perfectly comfortable saying in front of him. However, I still feel like there's stuff I'd have trouble being honest about (like explaining why people abuse drugs --- I don't understand it myself). I've particularly thought about the duality of sex that you mention: "Yes, your parents have sex, and if they didn't you wouldn't exist, nor would it be nice to live here, but you shouldn't do it because you don't know what you're doing." Obviously there are certain ways I can be honest, but it ends the conversation a lot faster to just lie.
Another issue, that you mention in your notes, is there are some things that kids just believe, without adults trying to deliberately deceive them. My son probably thinks that Thomas the Tank Engine is somewhere right now being really useful.
My parents could have lied to me about a lot, but they didn't because I have three older brothers and it was hard to keep lying to me when my brothers were finding out they'd been lied to. Also, I think as parents they just tried to be honest about things like sex and death. One of my brothers asked my father what a blow-job was in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner. I wasn't there, but my mom tells me that my father did, in fact, tell him later.
Thanks for writing such a questioning essay. I have two young boys and have spent a lot of time thinking about how my wife (an African-American physician) and myself (a European-descended American evolutionary biologist) are going to say to them about sex and drugs and death. My wife and I usually resolve these conversations by saying that we won't have to have "the talk" because our sons will be hearing about birth control from the time of their own birth. So far that's been true. Now that my older son can talk, I'm surprised about the stuff that I feel perfectly comfortable saying in front of him. However, I still feel like there's stuff I'd have trouble being honest about (like explaining why people abuse drugs --- I don't understand it myself). I've particularly thought about the duality of sex that you mention: "Yes, your parents have sex, and if they didn't you wouldn't exist, nor would it be nice to live here, but you shouldn't do it because you don't know what you're doing." Obviously there are certain ways I can be honest, but it ends the conversation a lot faster to just lie.
Another issue, that you mention in your notes, is there are some things that kids just believe, without adults trying to deliberately deceive them. My son probably thinks that Thomas the Tank Engine is somewhere right now being really useful.
My parents could have lied to me about a lot, but they didn't because I have three older brothers and it was hard to keep lying to me when my brothers were finding out they'd been lied to. Also, I think as parents they just tried to be honest about things like sex and death. One of my brothers asked my father what a blow-job was in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner. I wasn't there, but my mom tells me that my father did, in fact, tell him later.
I constantly lie to my children. 99% of the time its told with a wink, but I have been (unconsciously perhaps) testing there ability to tell whether or not I am joking or not.
My wife frequently jokes that "I have lost all credibility" with the children. I think this may be a good thing. I want my kids to be always straining to differentiate what is true from what is false, and to develop a good skeptical ear.
My wife frequently jokes that "I have lost all credibility" with the children. I think this may be a good thing. I want my kids to be always straining to differentiate what is true from what is false, and to develop a good skeptical ear.
Great article...kinda scary, though, from the point of view of a young adult (22) trying to shake a lifetime of careful indoctrination and religious brainwashing.
One begins to wonder...is any of it true? As Pilate asked, "What is Truth?" Is it even possible to find truth within one lifetime...and if so, how is it possible to know whether it is really truth, or another carefully fabricated lie for the comfort and peace of humanity?
I'm feeling rather skeptical about life right now...just did some research on a subject I was raised to believe was Satan's tool, and discovered all the propaganda I was spoon-fed as a child and teen was just that...more lies, told for the sake of religion.
Not that I am surprised that it isn't a tool of Satan. I certainly became skeptical about that before now. But that all the "facts" my parents used to convince me of it were so totally fake. Especially since they taught me the importance of good research early on. This implies that it was a premeditated lie on their part.
One begins to wonder...is any of it true? As Pilate asked, "What is Truth?" Is it even possible to find truth within one lifetime...and if so, how is it possible to know whether it is really truth, or another carefully fabricated lie for the comfort and peace of humanity?
I'm feeling rather skeptical about life right now...just did some research on a subject I was raised to believe was Satan's tool, and discovered all the propaganda I was spoon-fed as a child and teen was just that...more lies, told for the sake of religion.
Not that I am surprised that it isn't a tool of Satan. I certainly became skeptical about that before now. But that all the "facts" my parents used to convince me of it were so totally fake. Especially since they taught me the importance of good research early on. This implies that it was a premeditated lie on their part.
Just a quick point of identity on which I believe you're absolutely wrong. You wrote:
"Some parents feel a strong adherence to an ethnic or religious group and want their kids to feel it too. This usually requires two different kinds of lying: the first is to tell the child that he or she is an X, and the second is whatever specific lies Xes differentiate themselves by believing."
I won't try to argue with you about religion, but it also denies the existence of ethnic identity.
Here's a counter-example: Black parents can tell their kids that they (the kids) are black, and that's not a lie (unless you deny the existence of ethnicity or ethnic identity), and there is no need to tell any further lies lies by which black people would "differentiate themselves" (even though such lies certainly exist). Skin color and heritage are two very real things that are very relevant for many people.
"Some parents feel a strong adherence to an ethnic or religious group and want their kids to feel it too. This usually requires two different kinds of lying: the first is to tell the child that he or she is an X, and the second is whatever specific lies Xes differentiate themselves by believing."
I won't try to argue with you about religion, but it also denies the existence of ethnic identity.
Here's a counter-example: Black parents can tell their kids that they (the kids) are black, and that's not a lie (unless you deny the existence of ethnicity or ethnic identity), and there is no need to tell any further lies lies by which black people would "differentiate themselves" (even though such lies certainly exist). Skin color and heritage are two very real things that are very relevant for many people.
You got one thing wrong. Most kids can and do handle the truth about death better than most adults (Says the thirtysomething who tried not to cry at the funeral). The reason that we lie about death is that it is one of the biggest cultural taboos.
You are not supposed to talk about death. Keep silent at the cemetary. etc.
You are not supposed to talk about death. Keep silent at the cemetary. etc.
I think there is a really good reason for telling kids not to swear, and it's the same reason novice speakers of a foreign language are warned to avoid swearing until they're absolutely, positively certain they understand all of the subtleties involved. To go into a foreign culture throwing around swear words willy-nilly is to risk using them in the wrong context or in the wrong company, which can make one a social outcast or even the victim of violence. One can never get into trouble for not swearing, and with the cost of incorrect swearing so high, the best course of action for most novices is not swearing at all.
Likewise, as novices, kids lack the experience to know when the use of swear words is or isn't appropriate, and in such a case, the safest course of action is to avoid using them altogether.
Likewise, as novices, kids lack the experience to know when the use of swear words is or isn't appropriate, and in such a case, the safest course of action is to avoid using them altogether.
I am not sure if letting the parents of children explain sex to there children instead of myself (say these were your kids) would be a lie.
If your kids came up to me on the street and were to ask me questions about sex and I tell them anal sex is 'the best'... is that what you want me to tell your kids? Or maybe I should not discuss sex with your kids at all and let you, the parent do so.
While I respect the author, you just can't write something like this and pass it by parents of children. When you have a child and say you are in favor of Gay Sex & Marriage and are an Athiest you want to be able to help your child reason through these things and whatever answer they decide to pick is fine, but if you don't have a chance to at least have a real discussion about it before they make a decision is disappointing.
If your kids came up to me on the street and were to ask me questions about sex and I tell them anal sex is 'the best'... is that what you want me to tell your kids? Or maybe I should not discuss sex with your kids at all and let you, the parent do so.
While I respect the author, you just can't write something like this and pass it by parents of children. When you have a child and say you are in favor of Gay Sex & Marriage and are an Athiest you want to be able to help your child reason through these things and whatever answer they decide to pick is fine, but if you don't have a chance to at least have a real discussion about it before they make a decision is disappointing.
And in a hundred years, philosophy might be out of fashion, so should also be listed as a lie.
OK, taking my tongue out of my cheek: You don't even know what religion is, so defining it as a lie is . . . a lie you've told to your readers.
OK, taking my tongue out of my cheek: You don't even know what religion is, so defining it as a lie is . . . a lie you've told to your readers.
I believe strongly in a set of "semi-religious" axioms (from advaita vedanta) that keeps me functional, productive and happy. I strive to be a good son, colleague, friend, etc but within the boundaries of this framework, it makes me happy and I believe it keeps the people I come on contact with happy and well too.
1. Would you rather have a world view that is as close to the truth as possible and live a life of angst and striving? (to change the various inequalities and other issues with the world).
(or)
2. Would you believe the appropriate "lies" (as per your "belief system") and live life happily?
3. How would the world change as a result of your choice? Its a cyclic dependancy here.
Since we lie to kids maybe we simultaneously tell them to read adult literature so that they'll learn about some of the lies. Since we are uncomfortable with the truth's in adult literature maybe this is why children's literature is now so popular with parents. Annie Dillard (in her autobiography, American Childhood, I think) wrote about this. When she was a kid she remembered wondering "do adults know what's in these books they are telling us to read ?"
It's interesting that parents seem very sensitive to the contradiction of their lies in adult tv shows and movies but oblivious to the same problem in adult literature. (By adult I mean not non-juvenile not explictly sexual material)
It's interesting that parents seem very sensitive to the contradiction of their lies in adult tv shows and movies but oblivious to the same problem in adult literature. (By adult I mean not non-juvenile not explictly sexual material)
Both examples of lies about death don't seem to be lies about death. They would both seem to be an examples of lies designed to protect from details that would otherwise only cause pain. Doctors frequently tell both types of lie to adults.
Lies about death and sex etc are frequently this topic of lies between adults. That they take a different form is of questionable importance: they may just be because adults have to much experience to be so easy lied to, requiring a more elaborate lie (contrast became a star in the sky and the bible).
It would be interesting to ask what lies are told solely to children and are not simply more egregious examples of lies more generally told.
Lies about death and sex etc are frequently this topic of lies between adults. That they take a different form is of questionable importance: they may just be because adults have to much experience to be so easy lied to, requiring a more elaborate lie (contrast became a star in the sky and the bible).
It would be interesting to ask what lies are told solely to children and are not simply more egregious examples of lies more generally told.
May I kindly ask you to correct the link to the german translation on the main article page? It currently links to http://www.heiniger-net.ch/archives/167/langswitch_lang/de, but that link doesn't work anymore. Please link to http://www.heiniger-net.ch/archives/167 as indicated in my original post. I changed the way my blog handles multiple languages.
Thank you very much.
I like many of your essays, but this one is exceptional.
Recommend this book: It's not self-help. It's by a University Psychologist. We are a lot simpler than we like to think: "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by B Cialdini
Also Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". Excellent book that calls religion for what it is. He notes its a survival advantage for kids to believe what adults tell them without question: Unfortunately "Don't swim in the crocodile infested river" is accompanied by the same stories that tell us to love the guy who killed 2,000,000 people in the Bible, but revile the one who only killed 9.
Recommend this book: It's not self-help. It's by a University Psychologist. We are a lot simpler than we like to think: "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by B Cialdini
Also Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". Excellent book that calls religion for what it is. He notes its a survival advantage for kids to believe what adults tell them without question: Unfortunately "Don't swim in the crocodile infested river" is accompanied by the same stories that tell us to love the guy who killed 2,000,000 people in the Bible, but revile the one who only killed 9.
PG: what does suburbia mean to you? You paint it in an extremely negative light, and so I'd just like some more detail of how you define that term. I know it means different things to different people.
I'm not PG (obviously), but I also see suburbia pretty negatively and want to chime in.
To me, suburbia is that neighborhood with the tree-related name that offers four different house models and three different colors of paint. All the lots are roughly the same size, all the people are roughly the same, and the streets don't particularly go anywhere. When viewed from an airplane it looks like a giant millipede wrapped in on itself (driveways). You have to drive everywhere, and the only non-house structures within 20 miles are schools and chain restaurants.
Honestly I think suburbia works well for what it is designed for, which is raising families in a safe environment with a yard and lots of other kids to play with. I view it negatively now only because I'm in my mid-20s, without kids, and it's boring to me. I could take issue with suburbia's wasteful land/energy use, but I won't bother. My view is entirely personal preference.
I think what bothers me is that a lot of people don't realize there is any other way of life out there. Frankly, your opportunities in suburbia are mostly limited to working a 9-5 job and raising a family, so a lot of people I knew in high school just automatically went into that mode after graduating. If they went to college at all, they only did it because all their friends did, but they didn't have any goal for their degree. I think in the backs of their minds they knew that graduating from college meant getting married, moving to the suburbs, and having kids. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with marriage or kids, but why rush it? It just makes me wonder what those people might accomplish or see if that wasn't the automatic life plan.
To me, suburbia is that neighborhood with the tree-related name that offers four different house models and three different colors of paint. All the lots are roughly the same size, all the people are roughly the same, and the streets don't particularly go anywhere. When viewed from an airplane it looks like a giant millipede wrapped in on itself (driveways). You have to drive everywhere, and the only non-house structures within 20 miles are schools and chain restaurants.
Honestly I think suburbia works well for what it is designed for, which is raising families in a safe environment with a yard and lots of other kids to play with. I view it negatively now only because I'm in my mid-20s, without kids, and it's boring to me. I could take issue with suburbia's wasteful land/energy use, but I won't bother. My view is entirely personal preference.
I think what bothers me is that a lot of people don't realize there is any other way of life out there. Frankly, your opportunities in suburbia are mostly limited to working a 9-5 job and raising a family, so a lot of people I knew in high school just automatically went into that mode after graduating. If they went to college at all, they only did it because all their friends did, but they didn't have any goal for their degree. I think in the backs of their minds they knew that graduating from college meant getting married, moving to the suburbs, and having kids. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with marriage or kids, but why rush it? It just makes me wonder what those people might accomplish or see if that wasn't the automatic life plan.
I think "sprawl" might be a more descriptive term for what you're reacting negatively to. Boston has lots of suburbs that don't fit your description.
(BTW, suburb's etymology is not tree-related.)
(BTW, suburb's etymology is not tree-related.)
Yeah to me suburb means tract housing. Does Boston have suburbs that aren't tract housing?
(I said tree related because every suburban neighborhood I can think of has a tree related name... "Willow Springs" "Lone Elm Estates" "Pine Ridge" etc.)
(I said tree related because every suburban neighborhood I can think of has a tree related name... "Willow Springs" "Lone Elm Estates" "Pine Ridge" etc.)
Suburb means a city or town near a large city.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suburb
Those names sound like housing projects, not cities or towns.
Boston has a lot of suburbs accessibly by public transportation that have walkable city centers.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suburb
Those names sound like housing projects, not cities or towns.
Boston has a lot of suburbs accessibly by public transportation that have walkable city centers.
> accessible by public transportation that have walkable city centers.
Well that is good for Boston, but my experiences in the midwest and south are that suburbs = tract housing and schools.
And yeah, the names were definitely of housing projects... in my original post I was referring to "neighborhoods with tree-related names" ... I simply misspoke in my second post (hope you don't mind but I'm going to correct that).
Well that is good for Boston, but my experiences in the midwest and south are that suburbs = tract housing and schools.
And yeah, the names were definitely of housing projects... in my original post I was referring to "neighborhoods with tree-related names" ... I simply misspoke in my second post (hope you don't mind but I'm going to correct that).
A more general version of this I once heard (mostly in jest) was that "suburban neighborhoods are named after the part of nature that was destroyed to make the neighborhood." Mostly this includes various flora, although geographical descriptors such as "silver creek", "meadowmont", etc., are also used.
Yes - most of the "suburbs" in Boston are smaller towns that have grown and run into each other.
I mean post-war neighborhoods of tract houses build on spec by developers. I don't mean places that are merely geographically suburban, in the sense that they're less densely settled areas on the perimeters of cities.
(In the US, practically all the less densely settled area on the perimeters of cities are neighborhoods built by developers, but in Europe there are older cities where this isn't true.)
(In the US, practically all the less densely settled area on the perimeters of cities are neighborhoods built by developers, but in Europe there are older cities where this isn't true.)
A friend of mine works building these suburbs; they actually now use a portable factory to build a completely finished house (even painted, all fixtures installed, etc). They roll it down the street and drop it on the foundations, connect the plumbing and electrical and it is ready to be moved into.
So now they are literally cookie cutter neighbourhoods.
So now they are literally cookie cutter neighbourhoods.
A few short follow-up questions:
1) Is any "development" part of suburbia?
2) What if there were multiple developers building the houses?
3) What if it is x miles from a town center?
4) What if the owners built their own houses in the development?
Let's get specific using the Boston area as an example.
5) Do you think any parts of Cambridge count as suburbia?
6) Do you think any of the following areas/towns count as suburbia: Revere, Brookline, Newton, Framingham, Wellsley, Waltham, Lexington?
And finally 7) if an area is just less densely settled does that make it just as unappealing as suburbia in your view?
1) Is any "development" part of suburbia?
2) What if there were multiple developers building the houses?
3) What if it is x miles from a town center?
4) What if the owners built their own houses in the development?
Let's get specific using the Boston area as an example.
5) Do you think any parts of Cambridge count as suburbia?
6) Do you think any of the following areas/towns count as suburbia: Revere, Brookline, Newton, Framingham, Wellsley, Waltham, Lexington?
And finally 7) if an area is just less densely settled does that make it just as unappealing as suburbia in your view?
Why am I getting voted down for this--are these not legitimate questions? I am just trying to understand the definition of suburbia in this context.
Because understanding the notion of suburbia at that level of detail can't possibly be useful or relevant.
I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was useful and relevant :)
The essay spends a few paragraphs on it, hence its relevance. That is certainly the same level of relevance of some of the other upvoted comments on this thread.
The usefulness is two-fold: 1) I think the essay suggests a very black and white picture of what is suburbia and what is not, yet does not define it at all. I am trying to get to the core of that definition (if there really is one). Pg responded to my question, but didn't make it that much clearer, hence the follow-up questions. And 2) if you believe the essay, you presumably want to avoid suburbia, so it would be useful to know what it is!
The essay suggests that the only reason people move to suburbia is to have kids. I'm totally unsure whether pg or anyone else would say I live in suburbia (I would guess so though), and yet I don't have kids nor moved here to have kids. And I don't think where I live is suffocatingly fake either.
The truth is there are many, many types of different living environments in the US and other countries, and not all places near but not in city limits are unappealing. The questions attempt to start to delineate which parts in particular are being attacked. Is this really an attack on geography or housing style or is it an attack on the average person who lives outside the city?
The essay spends a few paragraphs on it, hence its relevance. That is certainly the same level of relevance of some of the other upvoted comments on this thread.
The usefulness is two-fold: 1) I think the essay suggests a very black and white picture of what is suburbia and what is not, yet does not define it at all. I am trying to get to the core of that definition (if there really is one). Pg responded to my question, but didn't make it that much clearer, hence the follow-up questions. And 2) if you believe the essay, you presumably want to avoid suburbia, so it would be useful to know what it is!
The essay suggests that the only reason people move to suburbia is to have kids. I'm totally unsure whether pg or anyone else would say I live in suburbia (I would guess so though), and yet I don't have kids nor moved here to have kids. And I don't think where I live is suffocatingly fake either.
The truth is there are many, many types of different living environments in the US and other countries, and not all places near but not in city limits are unappealing. The questions attempt to start to delineate which parts in particular are being attacked. Is this really an attack on geography or housing style or is it an attack on the average person who lives outside the city?
I grew up in SF in what a lot of people call "residential neighborhoods" rather than "suburbs". There are houses, with small yards, and sometimes the houses don't even border each other. It's very different from palo alto (which is generally regarded as a suburb), and utterly different from, say antioch (whis is part of what people often call the exurbs).
You do, as a kid, see a lot that needs explaining. Some days, as we drove home from school, my brother saw a long line of men lining up outside the "nob hill male". They must, he concluded, be the dancers rather than the audience. Snort.
I actually think that cities are a pretty good place for kids to grow up, largely because it cushions the impact of growing out of the lies PG has mentioned. At age 15 in SF, I found a release in coffee shops in the haight, north beach, and the mission - and I could easily get to them without a car. Sure, I did plenty of the things that parents worry about, but in the end, there were interesting and exciting ways to get away from childhood that involved expanding my mind rather than looking for trouble. When I look at the ennui of the kids growing up in the exurbs, sometimes I think that maybe the lure of drunk street racing is greater, because there's less to do.
You do, as a kid, see a lot that needs explaining. Some days, as we drove home from school, my brother saw a long line of men lining up outside the "nob hill male". They must, he concluded, be the dancers rather than the audience. Snort.
I actually think that cities are a pretty good place for kids to grow up, largely because it cushions the impact of growing out of the lies PG has mentioned. At age 15 in SF, I found a release in coffee shops in the haight, north beach, and the mission - and I could easily get to them without a car. Sure, I did plenty of the things that parents worry about, but in the end, there were interesting and exciting ways to get away from childhood that involved expanding my mind rather than looking for trouble. When I look at the ennui of the kids growing up in the exurbs, sometimes I think that maybe the lure of drunk street racing is greater, because there's less to do.
I don't think pg has painted it in a negative light. He says it is useful at certain stages in a child's development but not all stages.
as usual the essay shows paul grahams brilliance, but this essay seemed to end up as little more than an explanation for why we lie to kids. It ended up feeling very supportive of lying to children, which i certainly don't believe was mr. graham's goal. Obviously some lies are for protecting a child. But i cant believe he ACTUALLY supported the idea of telling a kid that turkey wanted to die. its because of those kinds of lies that i completely ignored my parents after the age of 12. I COULD NOT TRUST THEM. Which is to bad because they probably had some legitimate advise during those years. but due to my sanity i didn't even listen to them anymore. Basically it seemed like you said "parents lie to kids because they are philosophically lazy and avoid meaningful thought at all cost like 95% of humans do until they die. Of course actually trying to talk with a kid about a complex issue requires as much mental work as talking to another adult about a complex issue. Of course your average person isn't going to do either. so the basic problem here isnt that were lying to kids (as you explained a few of those lies are good) but root problem is that youre average person is addicted to ignorance and fears a little philosophy more than anything else. and of course the children are being raised to be just a knowledge-fearing as their parents are. I suggest you right an essay trying to convince people (adults,everybody) that knowledge, truth, and logic ARE NOT BAD. Because if theres anything thing that seems to be taboo among the common man its learning. If we could convince the world that learning was a good thing so many problems would be solved.
Thank you for sharing. I'm similarly somewhat both disappointed and thrilled by the amount of bullshit that gets thrown around, and worse still, accepted through generations. I think it's largely a matter of habit, and the old can't change these habits easily - the young can, but then the old often do that work for them.
If you take a pyramidal view of intelligence, it means really the base is getting wider over time, which is worrying, so to some extent it's the job of people at near the top of the pyramid to push correct information downwards.
If you take a pyramidal view of intelligence, it means really the base is getting wider over time, which is worrying, so to some extent it's the job of people at near the top of the pyramid to push correct information downwards.
This article is brilliant. Lies play an enormous role in this culture. I could go on and on about the topic, but I think one quote from A Language Older than Words by Derrick Jensen says it best:
"In order for us to maintain our way of living, we must, in a broad sense, tell lies to each other, and especially to ourselves. It is not necessary that the lies be particularly believable. The lies act as barriers to truth. These barriers to truth are necessary because without them many deplorable acts would become impossibilities."
"In order for us to maintain our way of living, we must, in a broad sense, tell lies to each other, and especially to ourselves. It is not necessary that the lies be particularly believable. The lies act as barriers to truth. These barriers to truth are necessary because without them many deplorable acts would become impossibilities."
"Probably the biggest lie told in schools, though, is that the way to succeed is through following "the rules." In fact most such rules are just hacks to manage large groups efficiently."
beautiful.
beautiful.
Well, you obviously never felt fear. When I was a kid, if my parents had told me the truth, I would have grown up very very warped. The somewhat scary things they told me disturbed me immensely, if they had told me things like "Oh, we are going broke", I would have died with worry.
I remember the fear from my childhood. Fear that something would happen to the family. Fear that I would be alone. That lightning would strike the building.
Thank God my parents told me lies. It allowed my childhood to be happy.
I remember the fear from my childhood. Fear that something would happen to the family. Fear that I would be alone. That lightning would strike the building.
Thank God my parents told me lies. It allowed my childhood to be happy.
It might help to substitute "ignorance" instead of "innocence" in your essay. To be innocent primarily means to 'do no harm' not "to be ignorant" of the truth.
I think many parents keep their kids ignorant (of evil) because they think it will help keep them innocent (free of the sin of committing evil). As you imply, for a time, this seems right, but eventually you need controlled exposure to toxins (ethical, etc.) to learn how to protect your self.
Maybe the easy dumb lies are the best ones to tell. When we grow up they are obviously lies and easy to dump. They serve as markers that say, "Use your own judgment and insert your own belief here."
For example, in the case of the turkey, maybe the absurd lie that turkeys want to die is better than whatever belief the parents use to justify eating meat (BTW- I'm not vegetarian). If the lie can be believed by an adult, the child may not question it when they become one.
For example, in the case of the turkey, maybe the absurd lie that turkeys want to die is better than whatever belief the parents use to justify eating meat (BTW- I'm not vegetarian). If the lie can be believed by an adult, the child may not question it when they become one.
Probably the biggest lie we tell kids, is that it is bad/immoral to lie.
Being a little older now, I have to conclude that this is a lie. Lying is like a knife. It is neither good nor bad; it can be used to do good or bad. This is such an important lesson and I really I wish my parents had been willing to teach it to me, instead of making me learn it the hard way by myself like everyone else.
Fundamentally lying is just a negotiating tactic. All that other emotional baggage is unnecessary.
Being a little older now, I have to conclude that this is a lie. Lying is like a knife. It is neither good nor bad; it can be used to do good or bad. This is such an important lesson and I really I wish my parents had been willing to teach it to me, instead of making me learn it the hard way by myself like everyone else.
Fundamentally lying is just a negotiating tactic. All that other emotional baggage is unnecessary.
Ah, alas that this essay ends. I hope there will be a follow up which may go into further detail in terms of how to go about erasing.
The entire concept of erasing ("unthinking"?) brings to mind the dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman in Book 3, Chapter 10. Specifically: "Gandalf stirred, and looked up. "What have you to say that you did not say at our last meeting?" he asked. "Or, perhaps, you have things to unsay?" Saruman paused. "Unsay?" he mused, as if puzzled."
The entire concept of erasing ("unthinking"?) brings to mind the dialogue between Gandalf and Saruman in Book 3, Chapter 10. Specifically: "Gandalf stirred, and looked up. "What have you to say that you did not say at our last meeting?" he asked. "Or, perhaps, you have things to unsay?" Saruman paused. "Unsay?" he mused, as if puzzled."
"The truth is common property. You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true."
This, my friends, is a pearl of wisdom.
This, my friends, is a pearl of wisdom.
It's not true -- my local Linux user group distinguishes itself from the majority by doing things that are rational (running Linux), and believing what's true (Linux is, for many tasks, better than proprietary OSes).
"I used to think I wanted to know everything. Now I know I don't."
I'd be interested to know what caused the change, and what types of knowledge you'd prefer not having.
I'd be interested to know what caused the change, and what types of knowledge you'd prefer not having.
Read Paul Fussell's Wartime. Or Eugene Sledge's With the Old Breed - At Peleliu and Okinawa. Then you'll know why I'm happy to study war from my armchair, despite the fact that I'll never really know what combat is like.
It's also good to not know what it feels like to be high on heroin or hooked on nicotine.
It's also good to not know what it feels like to be high on heroin or hooked on nicotine.
With the Old Breed is a truly great book.
I am WAY surprised to see that you have not only read it, but liked it . . . I agree that it is a great book . . . one of the Japanese tanks destroyed in combat is still on that very spot, with the crew's remains still inside it, at least according to an American veteran who went back for a visit a couple of years ago . . .
What it feels like to be disemboweled?
A friend of mine assures me that being stabbed in the chest feels like a solid punch, the kind that knocks the wind out of you.
I'm glad to take his word for it.
I'm glad to take his word for it.
"She wears a two way, but I'm not quite sure what that means." --Bowling for Soup
Your points are brilliant, and I love how they make me think more about "truth," or the illusion of it. To me, this is basically an essay about why we live our lives the way we do. You almost have to think back to the things we were told by our parents in order to realize why we do the things we do now. It's always interesting to analyze your own self. I love the essay about "Stuff" as well.
"Telling a child they have a particular ethnic or religious identity is one of the stickiest things you can tell them. Almost anything else you tell a kid, they can change their mind about later when they start to think for themselves. But if you tell a kid they're a member of a certain group, that seems nearly impossible to shake."
Most of the other lies aren't accompanied by mandatory genital mutilation.
Most of the other lies aren't accompanied by mandatory genital mutilation.
This is the best essay on parenting that I have ever read. Thank you. You have articulated so many things about honesty that I have been trying to practice with my own child, but could not always explain clearly why.
It's a cliche to say it, but I can't stop myself: This should be required reading for all parents.
It's a cliche to say it, but I can't stop myself: This should be required reading for all parents.
Lies told by parents do not affect children, once they grow old, they'll get to know things by themselves. Letting a child know about sex and drugs, will ruin the child's future - . If we got addicted to sex drugs or something else in the first place, there is no way that we can think, or direct our future. I certainly believe drugs take a toll on the human mind. :)
I pretty much raised my son according to these principles--you met Zak at the Stanford Y-combinator start-up seminar--and he is still the one I go to for rational discussion on almost any topic. He is able to take himself out of the equation and think about the problem at hand--even recognizing and ignoring his biases. Thanks for promoting rational thinking.
This is a funny post. I see that you got tons of posts. Probably because everyone who has a kid, thinks they are an expert on the subject. Can you post a follow up with the finer points? I have four young kids and all I know is that it is fucking hard work to do a good job and I lie to my kids whenever I have to make life sound fair or fairytale nice.
Amazing.
>Don't all 18 year olds think they know how to run the world?
The average 18 year old would have done much better than George W Bush. It seems very unlikely that the average 18 year old would be considered the worst president ever by a majority of historians. Pretty much impossible, in fact.
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
The average 18 year old would have done much better than George W Bush. It seems very unlikely that the average 18 year old would be considered the worst president ever by a majority of historians. Pretty much impossible, in fact.
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
I hope I have your kind permission for doing this: I love your essay so much that I would like the german speaking community to be able to read it too. I therefore translated it to german and published it on my own blog here: http://www.heiniger-net.ch/archives/167
May I kindly ask you to correct the link to the german translation on the main article page? It currently links to http://www.heiniger-net.ch/archives/167/langswitch_lang/de, but that link doesn't work anymore. Please link to http://www.heiniger-net.ch/archives/167 as indicated in my original post. I changed the way my blog handles multiple languages.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
" But why do we conceal death from kids? Probably because small children are particularly horrified by it."
One of the hardest things for me answer was the question "Dad, am I going to die?". Even though it is incredibly hard to tell them the truth, I do. The aftermath of saying "yes" to that one really, really sucks no matter how you try to handle it.
One of the hardest things for me answer was the question "Dad, am I going to die?". Even though it is incredibly hard to tell them the truth, I do. The aftermath of saying "yes" to that one really, really sucks no matter how you try to handle it.
At around 5 my son figured out that his mother and I would one day die. He cried off and on for several months, every time he thought or was reminded of it. He was not the sort of boy to cry, either.
It was during that period of my son's life that I actually felt my mortality like a weight on my shoulders. I am definitely more keenly aware of my health and the importance of staying healthy.
It was during that period of my son's life that I actually felt my mortality like a weight on my shoulders. I am definitely more keenly aware of my health and the importance of staying healthy.
I remember at 6 years old, my parents had answered that question and I became so terrified of death that I almost couldn't sleep at night...
I really don't know how I'm going to answer this question to my kids...
I really don't know how I'm going to answer this question to my kids...
I wonder why the author remembers Einstein, Curie and Carver. Was it because they were touted as the best scientists? Maybe he remembered them because they were exceptional characters. One reason exceptional characters are emphasized over typical ones in class is to pique interest (the typical student feels atypical).
I am absolutely positive that you have no children of your own, nor have you ever been around them. Normally I fight diligently against identity politics of that kind (positing that you cannot understand a position without first holding it), but with this article, you have made me rethink my general opposition to censorship.
I think we want our kids don't develope the full power of analysis, since them they should discover a huge number of contradictions in our social life, perhaps more than they can cope with.
The problem is that this way, when they become adults perhaps follow the same route: Don't think to much since there is no solution to this problem.
The problem is that this way, when they become adults perhaps follow the same route: Don't think to much since there is no solution to this problem.
I really enjoyed your essay.
I can't help but think that if my kid asked if the turkey wanted to die that I would want to take him or her in the other room, away from all of the other parents and explain to them how turkeys are grown for eating by farmers.
I would want my child to be able to choose not to eat the turkey if they thought it was immoral.
I can't help but think that if my kid asked if the turkey wanted to die that I would want to take him or her in the other room, away from all of the other parents and explain to them how turkeys are grown for eating by farmers.
I would want my child to be able to choose not to eat the turkey if they thought it was immoral.
There is a kind of lie used to spark off the child's imagination like the Santa Claus or fairies or ghosts. I don't think those are covered in this article. But these can help a child to visualize things those don't exist which is the very first step to create things those don't exist (as of now) when they grow up.
A few years ago, Paul Graham wrote: "When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is, don't say it." This essay makes me wonder if he chose not to follow his own advice. If he did, I wonder if it will do him much good. It surely will make reading his essays even more interesting.
[deleted]
I was quite touched by the book "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. Its central character, Atticus Finch, has become to me somewhat a role-model. If and when I raise children in my life, I'll be extremely contented if I manage to do it like he does in the story, and if my kids turn out like his.
[deleted]
I suggest to just shut the fuck up, and just spend quiet time with your kids. Listen to them. Look them in the eye, see who they really are, and what they need. Most of what they learn is not what you say, but what you do and who you are, and how you treat them and others. Talk less and say more.
Interesting thing is that as adults lie to kids other higher power people lie to the lower ones. For example politicians lie to citizens is a very similar manner. Or doctors (or relatives) lie to sick, probably dieing patients. So the concept is the same - to control and to "protect"
What about Santa Claus? I keep thinking of this issue these days, how much it used to hurt me when I started understanding that there was no Santa Claus. I keep wondering if I, in the future, should tell my kids the truth right away about the whole Santa Claus thing.
2 minutes, Alan Watts, beautifully complementary to this article:
http://www.richardsreader.com/alan-watts-on-the-unsettling-t...
http://www.richardsreader.com/alan-watts-on-the-unsettling-t...
Is this the same article that you mentioned almost a year ago? I read it expecting more of an evolutionary psychology approach to the teenage sex issue.
I've read a good bit of literature about religion and its roots in EP, and why it's such a good meme. The "payload" is part of the spread mechanism.
I've read a good bit of literature about religion and its roots in EP, and why it's such a good meme. The "payload" is part of the spread mechanism.
It did at one point seem like the reasons parents don't like their teenage kids having sex were very complex, but after reading and thinking more about it, I decided it was mostly that they still think of them as children.
"But if a kid asks you "Is there a God?" or "What's a prostitute?""
I've been asked the first. I said "no", and had a long (> 1hr) conversation with my 6 yr old about the issues.
If I was asked the second, I'd say that's not something you should be thinking about at your young age. Ask me in 5 years.
I've been asked the first. I said "no", and had a long (> 1hr) conversation with my 6 yr old about the issues.
If I was asked the second, I'd say that's not something you should be thinking about at your young age. Ask me in 5 years.
The only person qualified to determine if something being told to another is a lie....is someone who KNOWS the absolute truth. WHO would that be? Some things we all know is untrue and other things cannot be proven one way or another..i.e. religion.
When PG says that children are helpless and this is a thing we are wired to like, I remembered that in japanese the word used to mean cute is kawaii, and it also means something close to helpless (it is used to express a kind of pity).
PG:
"The famous scientists I remember were Einstein, Marie Curie, and George Washington Carver."
You've forgotten that you mentioned Newton some time ago as one of your heroes!
http://www.paulgraham.com/heroes.html
"The famous scientists I remember were Einstein, Marie Curie, and George Washington Carver."
You've forgotten that you mentioned Newton some time ago as one of your heroes!
http://www.paulgraham.com/heroes.html
parents don't tell lies to protect their children but to protect themselves. they claim themselves to be modern but their mind set is still of the 80s . they think that talking about sex is something very shameful and children having sex is almost unimaginable. moreover they creat an issue about children having sex at the age of 14 because they are afraid of the reaction they would get from their neighbours. "what would people say..." "I will have to stay in this society" etc. so it is not for the good of their children but to save themselves that parents lie.
Regards,
Sriranjani,
india
This deliberate, although not new.
deception: Century of the Self protection: Power of Nightmares
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22century%20of%20th...
deception: Century of the Self protection: Power of Nightmares
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22century%20of%20th...
the version of the Einstein quote that I've heard used the term "orgy of free thinking" rather than "fanatic freethinking". Quite a memorable little phrase and shows the amount of pleasure he got from "thinking".
I don't find this essay controversial, just insightful. I can see there are places where you are exaggerated for effect etc, but overall, the essay rings true. Am I missing something :-)?
I was just wondering, is PG married? and if it is so, does he have kids? :D
I wrote a long-format response to this essay on Jottit: http://lies.jottit.com. It's kind of too long to make as a comment, hence this pointer.
I just loved this one; very thought provoking! Some very strong ideas, with wonderful examples. I think, I am going to go through the whole thing once again, and then ponder over the ideas.
I think one of the best ways that I described a similar feeling was asking others when they had questions, during their teens, nobody--including their best teachers--could answer.
[deleted]
This article is being publicly translated into Russian:
http://translated.by/you/lies-we-tell-kids/trans/
(almost finished)
http://translated.by/you/lies-we-tell-kids/trans/
(almost finished)
very important insight:
"most of the rules are just hacks for managing large groups efficiently".
this explains most of the things that conspiracy theorists wail and gnash their teeth about.
this explains most of the things that conspiracy theorists wail and gnash their teeth about.
Swearing is nothing. And drugs they will do (and we pray they only dabble). Sex is different in that (IMO) you ante up something sacred (yourself).
Honestly I think that you are just trying to stroke your own ego when you classify religion as a type of lie. Please justify that.
regarding dying: One of the most vivid memories I have from childhood is the time my father told me he was going to die. It was quite simple, he said, "someday I will die, when I die, here is what I want you to do...." Its one of those things that shaped my whole view of the world, I think I has 10 or 11. Its more amazing to me now that I have a son, that he had the courage to be so honest.
I'm intruiged Mistone - what did your dad want you to do when he died? Was it procedural or philosophical? (natch, only share what you're comfortable with saying)
its was procedural, a basic Muslim burial - clean the body, wrap in a white blanked, and bury the body. So pretty simple from that standpoint.
The most powerful and far-reaching lies are the lies people tell themselves. Their children are part of them, so they tell them the same lies.
Quoting ratio: 1:2. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=151561)
On Valentine's Day this year my son called me from the passenger seat of his best friend's grandmother's Lexus SUV.
"What's masturbation Dad?"
I had an answer. I'd been thinking about it for two years. Just allowing the proper answer to surface.
This is near and dear for me. I'm in the process of introducing Online Courses for parents to learn methods of raising children without lying.
I answered his question without lying.
Two years ago, when he was six, my son Romeo and I went to a 20/20 Video store which specializes in new, used, and adult DVDs. Their selection is broad and the set-up is family friendly. All the commercial releases are set up in racks in the front of the store. The back third of the store is walled off w/ a curtain for the adult titles.
We were scanning titles one day and I looked around at one point to notice my son had disappeared. I called his name and began looking for him. A moment or two later he popped out of the adult section, red-faced and embarrassed. This is a huge moment for impacting the child positively or negatively.
"Romeo, come here," I said to him.
He wouldn't come.
I knelt down to be on his eye level and it was clear he knew this moment was important to me.
"Come here," I said, opening my arms to him.
He wouldn't move.
I moved toward him on my knees and he backed slowly away.
"You're not in trouble," I told him.
"I don't want to come to you," he told me clearly.
"It's your choice," I replied. "You are big enough to decide what to do with your body."
He softened.
"And... this important for us to talk about. I'll be ready in the next day or two, and I encourage you to let me know when you are ready too."
He softened some more. "Okay, Dad."
Two days went by.
We were sitting on the couch and between commercials I paused the DVR and said, "I'm waiting for you to let me know when you are ready to talk about what happened at the store the other day."
He flushed, but seemed open.
"Tell me if now is the time," I stated.
He nodded.
"So, tell me what that was like for you."
He froze.
"Tell me if you liked what you saw and are interested in learning more, or if it was not interesting to you."
Quietly, he said, "I'd like to know more about that."
"Tell me what you know about it so far," I encouraged.
"It has something to do with making babies and being married," he mentioned.
Not bad. At that age to connect sex and porn to marriage and babies with little prior context. I was proud of him.
"Well," I said, "we can always talk more about this. There is nothing wrong with bringing this kind of thing to me. My job as your dad is to help you prepare for success in your life. Sex and women and those kinds of movies are a small part of your whole life, and, they are important. So remember to bring all of those kinds of questions to me."
He nodded and smiled.
"Thanks for making that easy, Dad," he said.
"Sure. And just so you know, the way our society is set up, that room in the DVD store is for people who are 18 years old and up."
He looked at me carefully. "So I should probably only go there with you?"
Smiling I replied, "We'll probably wait a little bit until we do that, but we can. One day. And just so you know, wanting to know more about sex and women and marriage and those kinds of movies is perfectly healthy."
So, I wasn't surprised two years later when he called with the question about masturbation.
Just a few weeks earlier we'd been talking about puberty and what to expect. A wonderful friend of mine had been talking about all the hormones and mood swings his 10-year old daughter was going through. It reminded me how much my son prefers to be prepared for changes of any size.
When we spoke about puberty I invited him to tell me what he already knew about it.
"Your voice drops and you start getting really strong and really hairy," he told me.
"And tell me what else you know about it," I encouraged.
"Well, its time to start dating and getting together with girls. They get breasts and want you to spend money on them," he finished.
Hmmm...
"Where did you learn this?" I asked.
"Just around."
"Okay," I replied. "How about I tell you what I think is missing from that."
He nodded.
"Your body is going to be going through a lot of chemical changes inside. The point of them is to help you grow responsible for yourself when you live on your own. They'll steer you into relationships with people so you can learn more about sharing yourself as an adult. Sex becomes very interesting and women become very mysterious. I'm here to help you learn what I know about it and when you need help outside of me you have your Uncle to talk to."
"Okay, Dad."
And that was pretty much it. Until he called me and asked "What is masturbation?"
It was just like you outlined Paul. He was with his best friend's Grandmother and both boys had asked her the question to begin with.
She immediately told them they'd have to ask their Dad's.
My son, I'm proud to say, asked if he could call me that minute.
I was renting videos at that time and didn't recognize the number on my phone, but I took the call just sensing that there was some importance to it.
"Dad, I have a question," came his little voice through the headset.
"Sure son, what is it?"
By now you know what he asked.
And I was stoked to give him the info he needed.
"Romeo, remember when we were talking about Puberty the other day?"
"Yes."
"Okay, well this is related. Tell me what you know about Masturbation so far."
"Nothing. I just heard it on an episode of Family Guy."
Great.
"Okay, when people pass into puberty their bodies are going through all these chemical and hormonal changes. Some of the ways they use all that energy are physical. People join sports teams or acting classes or learn to express themselves in new ways. And, some of the energy can only be expressed sexually, which means when two people come together and share their bodies physically. Kinda like in the movies when people kiss, only they take it farther."
"Yeah," he said, to make sure I knew he was listening.
"Now," I told him, "not everyone has someone they can express themselves sexually with and they still need a physical release of that kind of energy. So, for men, they'll play with their penises until sperm comes out and it can make a big change in their quality of attention."
"Okay, Dad. And for women, they play with their vagina?"
"Exactly."
"How soon am I supposed to start?"
"There's no 'supposed to', son. And, I'm pretty sure you'll know when it is," I assured him.
He paused.
"Do you have any other questions?" I asked.
"I don't think so."
"How was that for you? To hear my answer?" I asked.
"Fine," he replied sincerely.
"Did you notice yourself getting uncomfortable?"
"No." He sounded as though it were no big deal. As if he expected me to have accurate and complete information. He also sounded as though he were totally at ease having this conversation over the phone in front of his best friend and best-friend's Grandmother.
Realizing I'd been on speaker this whole time I asked the Grandmother if I'd missed anything.
"No, I think you got it," she replied. Hearing her embarrassment over the phone I could tell she was eager to wrap this up.
"Romeo? Do you have any more questions about this?"
"Nope," he replied, satisfied. "Talk to you later."
We've since spoken once or twice about the topic and it is still with the comfort and ease of that call. Over the years he's realized I'm a safe place to bring this type of thing.
Now I'm no parenting expert. I'm a student. And I'm passionate about raising children to take responsibility for themselves from the beginning.
Teaching children responsibility is a skill. It is a practice. And having the kind of result I'm pointing to above is a choice.
I'm really grateful Paul brought this up because it is really critical stuff. I'm in the process of launching a site for parents who are seeking tools and techniques which can allow them to move their families from struggle to cooperation.
It's all based on the work of Dr. Jayne A. Major, Ph.D. If you are interested in getting some of her best work check out a simple introduction page at http://breakthroughparentinginaction.com/announcements/first... and take a peak.
Most of her work is available there with no commitments. For the sake of transparency, she and I are business partners and we are launching a series of offerings in the coming months that speak to this topic of how to raise children very specifically.
Thank you Paul for tackling this one. It is pivotal to our children's futures.
"What's masturbation Dad?"
I had an answer. I'd been thinking about it for two years. Just allowing the proper answer to surface.
This is near and dear for me. I'm in the process of introducing Online Courses for parents to learn methods of raising children without lying.
I answered his question without lying.
Two years ago, when he was six, my son Romeo and I went to a 20/20 Video store which specializes in new, used, and adult DVDs. Their selection is broad and the set-up is family friendly. All the commercial releases are set up in racks in the front of the store. The back third of the store is walled off w/ a curtain for the adult titles.
We were scanning titles one day and I looked around at one point to notice my son had disappeared. I called his name and began looking for him. A moment or two later he popped out of the adult section, red-faced and embarrassed. This is a huge moment for impacting the child positively or negatively.
"Romeo, come here," I said to him.
He wouldn't come.
I knelt down to be on his eye level and it was clear he knew this moment was important to me.
"Come here," I said, opening my arms to him.
He wouldn't move.
I moved toward him on my knees and he backed slowly away.
"You're not in trouble," I told him.
"I don't want to come to you," he told me clearly.
"It's your choice," I replied. "You are big enough to decide what to do with your body."
He softened.
"And... this important for us to talk about. I'll be ready in the next day or two, and I encourage you to let me know when you are ready too."
He softened some more. "Okay, Dad."
Two days went by.
We were sitting on the couch and between commercials I paused the DVR and said, "I'm waiting for you to let me know when you are ready to talk about what happened at the store the other day."
He flushed, but seemed open.
"Tell me if now is the time," I stated.
He nodded.
"So, tell me what that was like for you."
He froze.
"Tell me if you liked what you saw and are interested in learning more, or if it was not interesting to you."
Quietly, he said, "I'd like to know more about that."
"Tell me what you know about it so far," I encouraged.
"It has something to do with making babies and being married," he mentioned.
Not bad. At that age to connect sex and porn to marriage and babies with little prior context. I was proud of him.
"Well," I said, "we can always talk more about this. There is nothing wrong with bringing this kind of thing to me. My job as your dad is to help you prepare for success in your life. Sex and women and those kinds of movies are a small part of your whole life, and, they are important. So remember to bring all of those kinds of questions to me."
He nodded and smiled.
"Thanks for making that easy, Dad," he said.
"Sure. And just so you know, the way our society is set up, that room in the DVD store is for people who are 18 years old and up."
He looked at me carefully. "So I should probably only go there with you?"
Smiling I replied, "We'll probably wait a little bit until we do that, but we can. One day. And just so you know, wanting to know more about sex and women and marriage and those kinds of movies is perfectly healthy."
So, I wasn't surprised two years later when he called with the question about masturbation.
Just a few weeks earlier we'd been talking about puberty and what to expect. A wonderful friend of mine had been talking about all the hormones and mood swings his 10-year old daughter was going through. It reminded me how much my son prefers to be prepared for changes of any size.
When we spoke about puberty I invited him to tell me what he already knew about it.
"Your voice drops and you start getting really strong and really hairy," he told me.
"And tell me what else you know about it," I encouraged.
"Well, its time to start dating and getting together with girls. They get breasts and want you to spend money on them," he finished.
Hmmm...
"Where did you learn this?" I asked.
"Just around."
"Okay," I replied. "How about I tell you what I think is missing from that."
He nodded.
"Your body is going to be going through a lot of chemical changes inside. The point of them is to help you grow responsible for yourself when you live on your own. They'll steer you into relationships with people so you can learn more about sharing yourself as an adult. Sex becomes very interesting and women become very mysterious. I'm here to help you learn what I know about it and when you need help outside of me you have your Uncle to talk to."
"Okay, Dad."
And that was pretty much it. Until he called me and asked "What is masturbation?"
It was just like you outlined Paul. He was with his best friend's Grandmother and both boys had asked her the question to begin with.
She immediately told them they'd have to ask their Dad's.
My son, I'm proud to say, asked if he could call me that minute.
I was renting videos at that time and didn't recognize the number on my phone, but I took the call just sensing that there was some importance to it.
"Dad, I have a question," came his little voice through the headset.
"Sure son, what is it?"
By now you know what he asked.
And I was stoked to give him the info he needed.
"Romeo, remember when we were talking about Puberty the other day?"
"Yes."
"Okay, well this is related. Tell me what you know about Masturbation so far."
"Nothing. I just heard it on an episode of Family Guy."
Great.
"Okay, when people pass into puberty their bodies are going through all these chemical and hormonal changes. Some of the ways they use all that energy are physical. People join sports teams or acting classes or learn to express themselves in new ways. And, some of the energy can only be expressed sexually, which means when two people come together and share their bodies physically. Kinda like in the movies when people kiss, only they take it farther."
"Yeah," he said, to make sure I knew he was listening.
"Now," I told him, "not everyone has someone they can express themselves sexually with and they still need a physical release of that kind of energy. So, for men, they'll play with their penises until sperm comes out and it can make a big change in their quality of attention."
"Okay, Dad. And for women, they play with their vagina?"
"Exactly."
"How soon am I supposed to start?"
"There's no 'supposed to', son. And, I'm pretty sure you'll know when it is," I assured him.
He paused.
"Do you have any other questions?" I asked.
"I don't think so."
"How was that for you? To hear my answer?" I asked.
"Fine," he replied sincerely.
"Did you notice yourself getting uncomfortable?"
"No." He sounded as though it were no big deal. As if he expected me to have accurate and complete information. He also sounded as though he were totally at ease having this conversation over the phone in front of his best friend and best-friend's Grandmother.
Realizing I'd been on speaker this whole time I asked the Grandmother if I'd missed anything.
"No, I think you got it," she replied. Hearing her embarrassment over the phone I could tell she was eager to wrap this up.
"Romeo? Do you have any more questions about this?"
"Nope," he replied, satisfied. "Talk to you later."
We've since spoken once or twice about the topic and it is still with the comfort and ease of that call. Over the years he's realized I'm a safe place to bring this type of thing.
Now I'm no parenting expert. I'm a student. And I'm passionate about raising children to take responsibility for themselves from the beginning.
Teaching children responsibility is a skill. It is a practice. And having the kind of result I'm pointing to above is a choice.
I'm really grateful Paul brought this up because it is really critical stuff. I'm in the process of launching a site for parents who are seeking tools and techniques which can allow them to move their families from struggle to cooperation.
It's all based on the work of Dr. Jayne A. Major, Ph.D. If you are interested in getting some of her best work check out a simple introduction page at http://breakthroughparentinginaction.com/announcements/first... and take a peak.
Most of her work is available there with no commitments. For the sake of transparency, she and I are business partners and we are launching a series of offerings in the coming months that speak to this topic of how to raise children very specifically.
Thank you Paul for tackling this one. It is pivotal to our children's futures.
What will your son will think when he finds this posting in a few years?
If it's easily findable, I don't think he'd be too horrified. Don't you remember commiserating with friends over how awkwardly your own parents explained sex, masturbation, etc. (to the extent they explained at all)?
And this was a story where there was already a friend there (and the friend's mother), so it doesn't seem much of a risk.
Posting a story about walking in on his son masturbating, or something along those lines, on the other hand, would be bad.
And this was a story where there was already a friend there (and the friend's mother), so it doesn't seem much of a risk.
Posting a story about walking in on his son masturbating, or something along those lines, on the other hand, would be bad.
Would it be appropriate to tell a child not to swear because they don't have a good reason to yet?
A very well articulated thesis and something every parent should be aware of as they are doing it.
"...one of the symptoms of bad judgement is believing you have good judgement."
I thought this was a great quote.
I thought this was a great quote.
wow that was the most insightful thing i have read in a while. I know that there are lot of lies that are told to kids. I lived a life where i was constantly lied to and I knew that I was being lied to. I just didn't mention that I knew.
This is one of the most thoughtful and apparently correct essays I've read in a long time.
Adults lie constantly to other adults too. And I'm not saying we should stop either.
Never heard "Ask your parents" in my life. I guess it's only in American culture.
So then what is the response when someone else's child asks those example questions? If a child asks you if there is a God, do you try to convert them to whatever you believe?
I say what I think. I don't think saying "doesn't seem to exist, but many people believe" may harm any kid.
If a kid asks me of sexual stuff, i'll think twice, because what I say can be transmitted to parents in a different shape.
Let me ask: will you answer "ask your parents" in the same situations? About the religion - do you consciously try to avoid confronting a kid with your beliefs (that may be different)? (just want to figure out)
If a kid asks me of sexual stuff, i'll think twice, because what I say can be transmitted to parents in a different shape.
Let me ask: will you answer "ask your parents" in the same situations? About the religion - do you consciously try to avoid confronting a kid with your beliefs (that may be different)? (just want to figure out)
I don't think it's a question of harm. As for what I'd do, that would depend on the situation. If I answered the question, I would offer what I think, making it clear that that's what I think. But if the child were young enough, and were asking me to find out "the simple truth" rather than what I thought, I would probably tell them it's a question better answered by his or her parents. Especially if it involved specifics like "Is my grandma in heaven?" or "Will I die?"
For the most part, what I tell my son is the truth, though surrounded what I consider to be an appropriate perspective.[1] I think moral authority is important as a parent, and I think that is more solidly gained by telling your child the truth, so that they know they can ask a question of you and you'll give them a straight, true answer, as best you can. Lying about your own foibles, as PG points out, is a "cheap" method of gaining moral authority that backfires badly.
[1] I think a lot of "lies" we tell children have to do with that surrounding perspective. When we lie to avoid discussing certain subjects, it's because a child is not yet equipped to understand enough of the surrounding perspective to make it worth trying to understand the "truth".
For the most part, what I tell my son is the truth, though surrounded what I consider to be an appropriate perspective.[1] I think moral authority is important as a parent, and I think that is more solidly gained by telling your child the truth, so that they know they can ask a question of you and you'll give them a straight, true answer, as best you can. Lying about your own foibles, as PG points out, is a "cheap" method of gaining moral authority that backfires badly.
[1] I think a lot of "lies" we tell children have to do with that surrounding perspective. When we lie to avoid discussing certain subjects, it's because a child is not yet equipped to understand enough of the surrounding perspective to make it worth trying to understand the "truth".
This is a great follow-up to "What You Can't Say." Thanks.
The worst things about drugs is that many people die "bringing pleasure" to the unfortunate fools that use them. I will not be lying about drugs to my kid. They'll know the WHOLE truth, believe me!
Isn't this rather off-topic for HN? It's a well-written interesting essay, as always from Paul Graham, but is it at the top of the list for any reason other than it is written by Paul?
Because it's thought provoking and well written?
Yeah, fair enough. The definition of what should be on or off topic is always a complex one. And I did enjoy reading it.
There are aliens in the Matrix?
Has he even seen it?
Has he even seen it?
It seems to be the truth
This is a fascinating and dangerous account of systematic errors in how we raise children. Lies are damaging because they make truth harder to find -- the opposite of a lie is almost never the truth. But, once revealed as lies (a key problem), they are highly informative about the state of mind of the liar.
What the essay suggests in various ways in describing how we lie to children is that we are afraid of conflict. The world is full of conflict and violence though we wish it were not. But we can wish it away for our children for a short while.
Which leads, I think, to the underlying reason for Paul's discomfort with these lies. The way to resolve conflict is to engage with it in a highly choreographed way. There aren't many, but there are some ways that society has devised for dealing with conflict in non-violent ways. The constitution of the U.S. of A. is an example. Litigation and contract law are others.
Unreflective lying is thus counter-productive to a long-term goal of raising children that have the right combination of courage and humility that is necessary to repeatedly engage in conflict without resorting to violence.
A few other thoughts on specific passages:
"Very smart adults often seem unusually innocent, and I don't think this is a coincidence. I think they've deliberately avoided learning about certain things."
The thing that "very smart adults" have in common may not be selective ignorance, but rather strong skepticism. They haven't "learned" because they remain skeptical long after the rest of the world is satisfied with the lies they've been told.
"You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true."
The way I understand what you're getting at here is through the distinction between a public good and a natural monopoly. Some people naively assume that all public goods have the natural monopoly characteristic of declining average total costs of production. This is not true. Natural monopolies occupy a middle point in the temporal-spatial spectrum. At the low end, we have black markets that operate in small geographical regions for short periods of time until legal firms can enter. A black market may have a natural monopoly, but it is not a public good. At the other end of the spectrum, we have religion and political ideology, which are neither non-rivalrous nor non-excludable, and yet may have natural monopoly characteristics in how their doctrine are established and disseminated. The bizarre payload can be explained by the leverage these natural monopolies have over their followers. Incidentally, I am a Christian, and believe that learning and practicing Christian doctrine would be of benefit to everybody. But I am acutely aware of the bizarre payload that the church as an institution has accrued over many years. That bizarre payload is a problem for people like me to try and fix, not a reason not to adopt and practice Christianity.
In the end, I connected with this essay because I find the author engaged in what I consider to be one of the more difficult and important human endeavors: becoming free. Freedom cannot be had by force. It grows up in the detritus of shattered false beliefs about self and others. Its growth is fostered by the sun of social acknowledgment, but can wither under the same sun when not also watered down and washed off by humble listening and a habit of self-criticism.
What the essay suggests in various ways in describing how we lie to children is that we are afraid of conflict. The world is full of conflict and violence though we wish it were not. But we can wish it away for our children for a short while.
Which leads, I think, to the underlying reason for Paul's discomfort with these lies. The way to resolve conflict is to engage with it in a highly choreographed way. There aren't many, but there are some ways that society has devised for dealing with conflict in non-violent ways. The constitution of the U.S. of A. is an example. Litigation and contract law are others.
Unreflective lying is thus counter-productive to a long-term goal of raising children that have the right combination of courage and humility that is necessary to repeatedly engage in conflict without resorting to violence.
A few other thoughts on specific passages:
"Very smart adults often seem unusually innocent, and I don't think this is a coincidence. I think they've deliberately avoided learning about certain things."
The thing that "very smart adults" have in common may not be selective ignorance, but rather strong skepticism. They haven't "learned" because they remain skeptical long after the rest of the world is satisfied with the lies they've been told.
"You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true."
The way I understand what you're getting at here is through the distinction between a public good and a natural monopoly. Some people naively assume that all public goods have the natural monopoly characteristic of declining average total costs of production. This is not true. Natural monopolies occupy a middle point in the temporal-spatial spectrum. At the low end, we have black markets that operate in small geographical regions for short periods of time until legal firms can enter. A black market may have a natural monopoly, but it is not a public good. At the other end of the spectrum, we have religion and political ideology, which are neither non-rivalrous nor non-excludable, and yet may have natural monopoly characteristics in how their doctrine are established and disseminated. The bizarre payload can be explained by the leverage these natural monopolies have over their followers. Incidentally, I am a Christian, and believe that learning and practicing Christian doctrine would be of benefit to everybody. But I am acutely aware of the bizarre payload that the church as an institution has accrued over many years. That bizarre payload is a problem for people like me to try and fix, not a reason not to adopt and practice Christianity.
In the end, I connected with this essay because I find the author engaged in what I consider to be one of the more difficult and important human endeavors: becoming free. Freedom cannot be had by force. It grows up in the detritus of shattered false beliefs about self and others. Its growth is fostered by the sun of social acknowledgment, but can wither under the same sun when not also watered down and washed off by humble listening and a habit of self-criticism.
i wish i read that when i was younger. bravo pg for being frank.
sky is blue
"if it's inborn it should be universal"
Yeah -- just like lactose tolerance. Right.
This is genetic, and it's one of those things that differs by genetic ancestry. As Sir Richard Burton once said (paraphrasing here), polygamy versus monogamy is pretty much an affair of climate (and what climate your ancestors contended with).
Yeah -- just like lactose tolerance. Right.
This is genetic, and it's one of those things that differs by genetic ancestry. As Sir Richard Burton once said (paraphrasing here), polygamy versus monogamy is pretty much an affair of climate (and what climate your ancestors contended with).
pg quotes Peter Mayle, writing about divorce: "You shouldn't put the blame on one parent, because divorce is never only one person's fault."
to that pg replies: "Really? When a man runs off with his secretary, is it always partly his wife's fault?"
my answer to that would be: yes, even in that case, the guy's wife has to take part of the blame. she married him in the first place. if she was observant, she would have seen the signs. and she could probably tell he was restless or unfulfilled somehow, but chose to ignore it.
to that pg replies: "Really? When a man runs off with his secretary, is it always partly his wife's fault?"
my answer to that would be: yes, even in that case, the guy's wife has to take part of the blame. she married him in the first place. if she was observant, she would have seen the signs. and she could probably tell he was restless or unfulfilled somehow, but chose to ignore it.
I agree. In manner of response to the very agitated repliers: I'm not saying that sharing fault is something to be ashamed of.
I'm not also morally condemning my parents for lying to me, keeping me away from nice things and generally failing to teach me everything they should have known.
I'm not going to condemn anyone for trying to make a relationship work and then recognizing it failed. Maybe you failed. Maybe you had poor judgement. Whatever. It failed.
It is partly my fault that me and my wife are still together. I'm proud of that. I'll still be proud of that when she leaves me in 10 years. And I have been sharing the guilt.
I'm not big on the 'you can always see it coming' argument. I think there is always a reason person X wants to break up. And that reason must have something to do with person Y as well, otherwise, why break up?
I'm not also morally condemning my parents for lying to me, keeping me away from nice things and generally failing to teach me everything they should have known.
I'm not going to condemn anyone for trying to make a relationship work and then recognizing it failed. Maybe you failed. Maybe you had poor judgement. Whatever. It failed.
It is partly my fault that me and my wife are still together. I'm proud of that. I'll still be proud of that when she leaves me in 10 years. And I have been sharing the guilt.
I'm not big on the 'you can always see it coming' argument. I think there is always a reason person X wants to break up. And that reason must have something to do with person Y as well, otherwise, why break up?
That's an outrageous opinion, frankly.
Do you blame the people of Burma too for not "recognizing the signs" of the impending catastrophe? The rape victim for wearing a dress that's too tight?
Blame should be placed always with the actor. There may be extenuating circumstances for the people involved, but one should never allow those to dissolve and/or lesson the blame in the action.
Do you blame the people of Burma too for not "recognizing the signs" of the impending catastrophe? The rape victim for wearing a dress that's too tight?
Blame should be placed always with the actor. There may be extenuating circumstances for the people involved, but one should never allow those to dissolve and/or lesson the blame in the action.
"Blame should be placed always with the actor."
I wouldn't have put it the way the GP did, but yeah, "blame," if we have to assign it, probably does always land at least partly on both partners in a relationship. PG was proposing a hypothetical in "outrageous" terms as a counterexample, and arguing about the specifics of the counterexample is probably pointless. We aren't going to establish what the specifics were in the situation because it doesn't exist.
By "always blaming the actor" you also blame the woman who leaves an abusive man. You also blame the man who leaves his wife because she had an affair (though she doesn't want the marriage to end).
You're attaching a heavy moral burden to the notion of a failed marriage, and I think where the "Both partners are always responsible for a divorce" counselor is coming from is not one of moralistic condemnation. You're lumping an affair in with rape and natural disaster. At best, that's hyperbole, at worst you're trying to impose your moral code of fidelity on other people's children.
In a world where about a third of both men and women "cheat" on their spouses, I think it's hypocritical of society to be universally and unilaterally condemnative of the behavior. If we're talking about the culpability in breaking a promise of fidelity, we also need (in the context of our hypothetical affair situation) to talk about the culpability involved in the other promises of marriage. Was she loving, honoring and obeying him? Was he? I don't accept that these thorny and extremely poorly-defined questions can possibly come down to a simple equation of blame.
You might accuse me of casuistry, and I can see that. But as far as I'm concerned you can't possibly come up with some equation of "blame" for a failed marriage whose definition is so precise and so universal that there is any circumstance where you can objectively and unambiguously assign it to only one partner.
A better example lie, in the context of a divorce, might have been "children are always blameless." It's obnoxious to most people to contemplate the idea that children in a family might contribute to a divorce, but this is undoubtedly sometimes true.
I wouldn't have put it the way the GP did, but yeah, "blame," if we have to assign it, probably does always land at least partly on both partners in a relationship. PG was proposing a hypothetical in "outrageous" terms as a counterexample, and arguing about the specifics of the counterexample is probably pointless. We aren't going to establish what the specifics were in the situation because it doesn't exist.
By "always blaming the actor" you also blame the woman who leaves an abusive man. You also blame the man who leaves his wife because she had an affair (though she doesn't want the marriage to end).
You're attaching a heavy moral burden to the notion of a failed marriage, and I think where the "Both partners are always responsible for a divorce" counselor is coming from is not one of moralistic condemnation. You're lumping an affair in with rape and natural disaster. At best, that's hyperbole, at worst you're trying to impose your moral code of fidelity on other people's children.
In a world where about a third of both men and women "cheat" on their spouses, I think it's hypocritical of society to be universally and unilaterally condemnative of the behavior. If we're talking about the culpability in breaking a promise of fidelity, we also need (in the context of our hypothetical affair situation) to talk about the culpability involved in the other promises of marriage. Was she loving, honoring and obeying him? Was he? I don't accept that these thorny and extremely poorly-defined questions can possibly come down to a simple equation of blame.
You might accuse me of casuistry, and I can see that. But as far as I'm concerned you can't possibly come up with some equation of "blame" for a failed marriage whose definition is so precise and so universal that there is any circumstance where you can objectively and unambiguously assign it to only one partner.
A better example lie, in the context of a divorce, might have been "children are always blameless." It's obnoxious to most people to contemplate the idea that children in a family might contribute to a divorce, but this is undoubtedly sometimes true.
It's obnoxious to most people to contemplate the idea that children in a family might contribute to a divorce, but this is undoubtedly sometimes true.
Actually that was another of Mayle's 3 axioms, and it seemed to me that might sometimes be false too, but I went for the other because was so obviously false.
Actually that was another of Mayle's 3 axioms, and it seemed to me that might sometimes be false too, but I went for the other because was so obviously false.
>You're attaching a heavy moral burden to the notion of a failed marriage,
I did no such thing. You did. If you remove that point, you'll see that I'm perfectly consistent in assigning blame to the actor.
I did no such thing. You did. If you remove that point, you'll see that I'm perfectly consistent in assigning blame to the actor.
I'm not the one who compared leaving your wife to rape and genocide. It's preposterous to do that and then to say that you're not equating "blame" with "moral condemnation." And since you reiterate your consistency, I can only assume that when a woman leaves an abusive husband, she too is solely to blame, or when a man leaves his unfaithful wife, he is solely to blame.
That's a silly position, which considers only proximate causes, and that's my problem with PG's "outrageous" counterexample. I don't think you can show the statement "both partners in a failed relationship are at least to some degree responsible for its failure" to be false.
To take PG's "outrageous" husband--people don't wake up one morning and say, "Well, I'm arbitrary and evil, I think I'll leave my wife for no reason whatsoever." Causes beget causes, and in any long-lived relationship, they do so in such a tangle that you can't possibly ever assign fault, responsibility or blame entirely on one person, even if all that you can see is that one partner chose wrongly at the outset.
That's a silly position, which considers only proximate causes, and that's my problem with PG's "outrageous" counterexample. I don't think you can show the statement "both partners in a failed relationship are at least to some degree responsible for its failure" to be false.
To take PG's "outrageous" husband--people don't wake up one morning and say, "Well, I'm arbitrary and evil, I think I'll leave my wife for no reason whatsoever." Causes beget causes, and in any long-lived relationship, they do so in such a tangle that you can't possibly ever assign fault, responsibility or blame entirely on one person, even if all that you can see is that one partner chose wrongly at the outset.
If we think we lie too much to our children - what about the politicians in power that lie to us every day, and call it FREEDOM?
The reason that parents don't want kids to swear is because they genuinely believe that it is wrong for some reason. The don't know the reason themselves, and so break the rule and become hypocrites, but they still believe that it is wrong and want their children to do better than they did.
With regard to group identity (and religion,) most parents actually adhere to that identity themselves. They share the beliefs and assumptions of that group and so would be hypocrites not to instruct their children in them.