Done

In short: I don't aim to influence their personality. I have given up on that long ago. Instead I aim for knowledge. Knowledge is not heriditary and evolution better not throws knowledge passed on from parents to children out of the window.

I researched the effect I can have on the life success of my parenting and came to the concusion that effects exist - esp. at the high end of the spectrum. I haven't written about that yet and need to pull the references together first. One quote from the Handbook of Parenting Vol. 4 I just looked up:

That variations in many developmental outcomes can be at least partly accounted for by individual differences in parenting quality is a premise that has widespread empirical support. (Baumrind, 1970; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Isabella and Belsky, 1991; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, Baumwell, and Damast, 1996). Conceptualizations of competent parenting, however, will by necessity depend on the specific child outcomes of interest. Language development, for example, appears to be best fostered by caregiving environments rich in language inputs, tailored to the child’s developmental level, and responsive to the child’s bids to communicate (Bornstein and Tamis-LeMonda, 1997; Warren and Walker, in press). Parent-provided language mastery experiences and parental responsivity to child behavior are similarly important for promoting children’s intellectual development (Bornstein and Tamis-LeMonda, 1989; Carew, 1980; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 1996), and to these we can add the adequacy with which parents structure their children’s environments to be intellectually stimulating (e.g., in terms of providing appropriately stimulating play materials and variety in daily stimulation; Bradley, 1999). Attachment theorists, by contrast, would likely define competent parenting in terms of parental sensitivity, or the ability of the parent to read and respond contingently and appropriately to infant distress, bids for comfort, and cues for interaction and withdrawal (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall, 1978; Belsky, 1999). Conceptualizations of parenting competence would also differ in relation to age-related differences in children’s developmental competencies and specific needs.

--

For the Greman speakers this is the introductory paragraph I already wrote for the blog:

Erziehungsziele - Erziehungspremissen

Ich vermute, dass Werte oder zumindest wertekonformes Verhalten flüchtig sind, während Wissen und Kompetenzen erhalten bleiben und ein Fundament bilden.

Werte, die während der Kindheit anerzogen wurden, werden während der Pubertät auch durch die natürliche Gehirnentwicklung in Frage gestellt und die Jugendlichen finden ihre eigenen Werte - und setzen sie durch, rebellieren oder leiden ggf. unter dem resultierenden Konflikt.

Meinem Verständnis der Evolutionspsychologie nach nutzt dieses natürliche Verhalten den jungen Erwachsenen, da sie selbstbestimmt mehr (Fortpflanzungs-)Erfolg haben.

Ich glaube, dass Werte und Verhaltensweisen, die eingefordert oder unfreiwillig angenommen werden (und sozialer Druck kann da viele Formen annehmen) keine nachhaltige Wirkung haben. Selbst wenn die Eltern/Erzieher selber diesen Regeln folgen kann der gefühlte oder reale Druck zu Gegenreaktionen führen.

Wissen und Methodenkompetenzen jedoch gehen in der Pubertät nicht verloren (das wäre ja auch evolutionsmäßig kontraproduktiv). In der Erziehung in Wissen zu investieren ist also effizienter als in Werte.

Nichts desto trotz kommt man um Werte- oder Verhaltenserziehung nicht herum - sonst hat man es selbst nicht leicht und Erwartungen anderer werden enttäuscht. Und für die Kinder ist es auch nicht besser.

Ein Kompromiss den ich sehe ist, Werte und Verhaltensweisen nicht einzufordern, sondern als Wissen zu thematisieren. Das Wissen (inkl. die spielerische Erfahrung damit), welche akzeptablen oder problematischen Verhaltensweisen es gibt, ermöglicht es den Kindern später diese Verhaltensweisen nicht nur auszuüben (wenn sie es denn wollen), sondern auch bei anderen zu beobachten und zu reflektieren. Natürlich geht das erst wenn die Kinder in der Lage sind dies zu verstehen.

...

Yes, I train color distinctions. Every card has two colors and shows them plus a color name then the user has to decide which color Anki displayed. Over times the distance between the colors goes down and I pick colors that are more near to each other.

I have written about this on LW in the past.

Anki can import .csv files easily. I did create my Anki color perception deck via R and the process was very straightforward without the need for any special library.

On the other hand there great care to be taken with auto-generating cards from existing data sources. Taking time to think about each card often makes sense. Bad cards cost a lot of review time and when you automatically create cards it can frequently lead to a lot of bad cards.

I like the animation and the voice, but I dislike the text. I don't need it and it really distracts from the animations. And if I did need to read along with what you say, I think YT has a subtitle feature that would be much less distracting and could be turned off. I suppose I've seen videos using the style you attempt here, but I'm not sure I like then, either, and they typically use text only, while you also use pictures.

Oh, and I suppose you would be faster in producing those videos if you were to give up on the text.

There is this idea (I think it's a stoic one) that's supposed to show that no one ever has anything to worry. It goes like this:

Either you can do something about it, in which case you don't have to worry, you just do it. Or there is nothing you can do, then you can simply accept the inevitabel

It throws out the possiblility that you don't know whether you can do anything (and what precisely) or not. As I see it, worry is precisely the (sometimes maladaptive) attempt to answer that.

Every calse dichotomy is another example for this failure mode (if I understood you correctly).

Good call!

Yes, your theory is more prosaic, yet it never occured to me. I wonder whether purposefully looking for boring explanations would help with that.

Also, your theory is actually plausible, fits with some of my observations, so I think that I should look into it. Thanks!

I know it's just an example, but concerning

I find it hard to do something I consider worthwhile while on a spring break

maybe you have learned to be lazy on spring break? I mean, the theory that it's a habit seems more prosaic to me than being tired or something about "activasion energy".

Aren't we all forgetting something big and obvious[1] that's staring us in the face? :-/ There are people out there for whom "rationality" is counter to their values! Imagine someone who reads the horoscope every morning, who always trusts their gut feelings and emotions, who's a sincere believer in homeopathy, etc etc (whatever you think an irrational person believes). Such a person would probably strongly rationality, rationalists, and the complex of ideas surrounding rationality, for probably understandable reasons (i.e. if a group consistently belittles your treasured beliefs, you're liable to hate and dislike the group). Such people might dislike R!Harry because they'd see rationality as a magic feather, and seeing it working in the story (to an uncanny degree, I might add) would be reading an author tract for them. Imagine a black person reading a fanfic where, through the power of !RACISM! (exaggeration mine), Harry gets everything handed to him on a silver platter.

[1]disclaimer: just because it's big and obvious doesn't mean it's actually more right or important, but only that it's easier to see and think about

1) This is fantastic- I keep meaning to read more on how to actually apply Highly Advanced Epistemology to real data, and now I'm learning about it. Thanks!

2) This should be on Main.

3) Does there exist an alternative in the literature to the notation of Pr(A = a)? I hadn't realized until now how much the use of the equal sign there makes no sense. In standard usage, the equal sign either refers to literal equivalence (or isomorphism) as in functional programming, or variable assignment, as in imperative programming. This operation is obviously not literal equivalence (the set A is not equal to the element a), and it's only sort of like variable assignment. We do not erase our previous data of the set A: we want it to be around when we talk about observing other events from the set A.

In analogy with Pearl's "do" notation, I propose that we have an "observe notation", where Pr(A = a) would be written as Pr(obs_A (a)), and read as "probability that event a is observed from set A," and not overload our precious equal sign. (The overloading with equivalence vs. variable assignment is already stressful enough for the poor piece of notation.)

I'm not proposing that you change your notation for this sequence, but I feel like this notation might serve for clearer pedagogy in general.