= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jfm comments on Rational Parenting? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (39)
Troll answer: http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/
Serious answer: I would suggest taking a leaf from the HP:MoR fanfiction and exposing children to Feynman, hard sci-fi, Flatland, The Phantom Tollbooth, Godel, Escher, Bach, and some of the better popular science books. Of course, instilling a love of reading is a good way to get children to want to read those in the first place, so you may want to broaden the reading selection with some other (not directly related to rationality) books.
To the first part of your question, I feel as though trying to derive from first principles a correct response would be beyond my abilities. Perhaps simply taking care to not patronize children would be a good start, as well as making sure to send a consistent message vis-a-vis punishments and objectives?
Anyone else have ideas? I feel as though anything else I say would just be regurgitating cached deep wisdom.
(Edited for stupidity/typos).
Can you briefly explain to me why taking children seriously is a troll answer?
Taking children seriously is based on the teachings of Karl Popper, whose style of rationality is not the "LessWrong-Preferred" (tm) flavor, having been supplanted by Jaynes-style Bayesianism.
(There have been arguments back and forth on LessWrong about Popper preferring falsification above attempting to show something can meaningfully be considered to be true, with some stating that this is not true Popperism, with others claiming that this is a No-True-Scotsman argument.) Because of the controversy, mentioning Karl Popper on LessWrong is a way to generate lots of sound and fury without much meaningful discussion.
Ah, this is precisely the sort of answer that is useful to me. Thank you.
Taking Children Seriously doesn't have a lot to do with scientific epistemology,so the falsificationism vs Bayes thing isn't hugely relevant. It is more to do with political libertarianism.
AFAICT, taking children seriously is a good idea. The group that calls itself "Taking Children Seriously", not so much. I see a lot of talk about how important it is to take children seriously, but no actual instructions on how to do so ("reach a solution that gives everyone what they need", well, duh - how do I do that?), or general consequences thereof that should apply to most families where children are taken seriously.