I am fairly sure that helicopter parenting is not the same as being involved. I correlate helicoptering with making decisions for the kid or running errands for them, while being involved often is more on the level of asking about things, and giving support when asked.

Before you criticize helicopter parenting: Remember, there is a strong correlation between parental involvement in a child's life and positive outcomes. Of course, the helicopter parenting and positive outcomes could have a shared cause -- intelligence, higher socioeconomic status, or the like -- and anything can be taken too far, including parental involvement.

But in all, kids of parents like Amy Chua are far more likely to end up successful along most metrics than children of parents who ignore their kids.

That is so mean. I just spent 2 weeks in Berlin, but will leave the city on 7pm and only saw the message now.

EY's weekly baseballbat bashing

explain?

Oh, also usually ignored are things that happen to almost everyone. EY's weekly baseballbat bashing. Lifestyle interventions do reduce health risks to some degree but are commonly ignored.

The classic example is that WW1 gets a lot more attention than the Spanish flu, even though WW1 killed about 35 million people, and the flu killed between 50 and 130 million. On the other hand, the war made a huge political difference, so it might not just be a matter of intentionality.

Also intentionality matters- actions which have intent behind them are more salient. This helps make murder seem more likely. I wonder if cultures that believe that diseases are caused by demons or spirits are more likely to overestimate the risk of disease? This might be hard to test because those cultures are going to be ones generally without modern medicine and have higher disease rates. Maybe look at religious groups that strongly believe that sin causes disease?

Murder rates are usually overestimated, while diseases and accidents are underrated. Due to availability bias thing that happen regularly are concerns, things that are superrare, but might kill many people if are ignored.

Traveling: I sometimes have multiple trips lined up, so I put all relevant items for each trip in a seperate plastic folder. Items that are not free yet get replaced by a small piece of paper like "train discount card". That makes sure I do not forget travel specific items.

In general I use a packing list that I regularly update before and after each trip. I also unpack after the trip and check back on the checklist to see if I packed something needed that is not on the list yet. Afterwards I evaluate the items and write that in a seperate column to see over multiple trips if an item is never used (which might indicate I do not need it) or regularly needed but not brought or understocked.

Then I have a box with all the items I mostly use only while travelling. That makes packing these much easier. If my travelrate goes up someday I probably get doubles of most items.

My list also includes actions to before the trip (charge batteries, cut nails) and process goals like having packed a day early and stress free.

The results so far are a much more relaxed time while packing. I am faster and rarely forget anything. I still want to look through the data collected on my last 20+ trips and reorder everything, maybe put in a formular for quantities, or group items that only belong to specific types of trips (long, short, camping, summer, winter).

I found that for me travelling even a crudely done checklist is better than none.

That some people steadily complain about some activity they regularly voluntarily participate at is an existing phenomenon, but not something specific to spectator sports.

Also, even if the very act of watching the match is unpleasant, it may be offset by subsequent pleasant discussions about the game, to which having seen it is a natural prerequisite. And even if the discussions weren't pleasant, they may be an easy way to strengthen tribal membership.

What exactly is stupid here?