Jonathan_Graehl comments on Our House, My Rules - Less Wrong

36 Post author: David_J_Balan 02 November 2009 12:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (229)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Breakfast 02 November 2009 04:52:10AM *  19 points [-]

"But people are sometimes authoritarian and cruel! Just for fun! And the only people who you can be consistently cruel to without them slugging you, shunning you, suing you, or calling the police on you are your children. This is a reason for more than the usual amount of skepticism of arguments that say that strict parenting is necessary."

That's a very good point. But there may be a parallel counterpoint: "Sometimes parents are indulgent and too lazy or exhausted or undisciplined to enforce an appropriate degree of discipline in their own children. And the one relationship in the world that is probably most often characterized by unquestioning, adoring love is that from parents to their children. This is a reason for more than the usual amount of skepticism of arguments that say that liberal parenting is necessary." Nothing makes most (... or at least many?) parents happier than making their children happy — so shouldn't we expect a bias toward indulgence too?

Perhaps it would be better to weight our arguments about appropriate parenting styles based on the personalities of particular parents.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 04 November 2009 01:08:56AM 2 points [-]

I was going to make exactly that point. There are biases in both directions; the author's argument should be that the bias toward harshness dominates.

Also, it's likely that much seemingly frivolous cruelty actually increases the status of its perpetrator. I don't think there's much gain when the victim is so far from you in status as your child, but it's quite believable to me that at least a few million adults are broken enough that it's a possibility.