= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
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.
In response to
comment
by
on
On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback]
In response to
comment
by
on
On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback]
To be a bit more specific. In one job I had parents come in with their kids to make sure they fill out their forms correctly and basically doing the interview for them. Helicopter: takes many things from the kid, that it would do uncorrect, incomplete or wrong, thereby sheltering the kid from real life experience. Helicopter parents storm into the university office, when a problem arises - or when not. Phone the professors and basically prevent the kid from going out on its own.
Being involved sounds like asking lots of questions offering support when asked, or maybe stating opinions without being asked. Its about taking an interest in the kids life, not running it for them.
In response to
On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback]
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.
In response to
comment
by
on
On the Care and Feeding of Young Rationalists -- Revisited[Draft] [Request for Feedback]
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.
In response to
Meetup : First Berlin meetup
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?
As written by CronoDAS. If most people get a debilitating disease by age X it would be widely accepted as unavoidable. Used to be the case with losing teeth in old age, still is with dementia and aging. Basically a comparison of the own experience to the common experience of your peers.
In response to
List of underrated risks?
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.
Both also targeted different groups. The flu got old, very young, poor people while the war involved more men of working age. Its weird though that the flu was left out of my history teaching.
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?
Maybe look at religious groups that strongly believe that sin causes disease?
In developed countries they just get treatment secretly.
In response to
List of underrated risks?
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.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Sometimes children are bullied by children of the same age, so separating children by exact age does not help with this. It may reduce the frequency, but I can imagine other ways of solving this problem; for example having adult people near, or using cameras in schools, in case of problem looking at the evidence and actually punishing the bullies.
I only have anecdotal evidence, but it seems to me that the biggest problem with bullying is that the bullies are never seriously punished, simply because the bullies are children too, and there is always someone there to protect the child from any harm, even if that child is actively trying to ham another child. And every time the bully gets the "second chance", the victim gets a lesson in helplessness.
I wonder which way the causation goes here. It might be that bullying occurs because they do not interact with each other that much, or because being seen with a different-aged person is considered uncool.