4 ms·

I have to agree with you. >Helicopter parenting >Instead of strict obedience, they emphasize adaptability, problem-solving and independence These two don't a

I have to agree with you. >Helicopter parenting >Instead of strict obedience, they emphasize adaptability, problem-solving and independence These two don't align. The main detriment of helicopter parenting is that it does not promote independence. Furthermore, I'm from a country that does fairly well in PISA tests and I find that kids here tend to have far more freedom than in most western countries. Kids play on their own across town without any supervision even before the age of 7. Kids also come and go to school on their own at age 7. Sometimes the school is a few kilometers away in a city and that's considered normal. This isn't an anecdote against the study, but rather against the author's wording. >Using data from a national study that followed thousands of American teenagers for years, the authors found that the offspring of “authoritative” parents were more likely to graduate from college and graduate school, especially compared with those with authoritarian parents. This doesn't necessarily mean that they had better outcomes. I can guess at why kids with authoritative parents might be more likely to go to college and get a graduate degree, but I'm not sure it actually results in better outcomes. A degree in something useless is not worth the time and money it costs. A degree you don't finish is worth even less, because college seems to be largely about signaling.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
I was also going to point out that there's no definition of an end result of "it works" other than, as you quoted, "graduating". But my post was already too long and ranty - but this one isn't... yet. To be able to define one parenting method or another as 'successful' or to say that 'it works' is as subjective, and therefore meaningless, as saying 'I know the meaning of life'. A college-dropout stoner packing shelves at a supermarket could be considered successfully parented if they're a nice person and have chosen that particular lifestyle because they believe that to participate in the corporate rat race is to advocate for it, and that's a bridge too far; as opposed to having that lifestyle thrust upon them because that's their highest level of incompetence* *Just an example, not a personal anecdote
indus_river 8y ago
The New York Times is a mouth piece of orchestrated propaganda, and the prevailing wind they’re trying to sell people on is: Most people are really quite stupid, knowing this, we have to intuit that a large number of stupid people are hearing a message that “helcopter parenting” is frowned on, and this might serve as a cue to tragically stupid parents to cut back on general guidance, possibly to the point of neglect. Given that our audience is comprised of many stupid people, we need to send a clear signal to circumvent the optics of overparenting. The only message stupid people will understand is a diametrically opposed message. To whit: there is no such thing as overparenting, more is better. Smothering your children is okay. If anything, a propaganda voice like this might serve as a clarion call to shelter children to the point that they grow up stunted, naive and a little immature or socially inept, but honestly it will lead to fewer criminals and lower prison populations, thus the generalized bulletin may be conscionably delivered to the lowest common denominator, however wrong it might prove, upon deep examination.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  God that's depressing. Which probably means it's on the money. It makes any discourse on the subtleties of any topic treated in such a way meaningless because the reason behind it is the sub-text as opposed to what is actually presented. Putting icing around a rock and throwing it through a window then saying "I've delivered your cake" when the whole point is the rock and the broken window.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago

I was also going to point out that there's no definition of an end result of "it works" other than, as you quoted, "graduating". But my post was already too long and ranty - but this one isn't... yet. To be able to define one parenting method or another as 'successful' or to say that 'it works' is as subjective, and therefore meaningless, as saying 'I know the meaning of life'. A college-dropout stoner packing shelves at a supermarket could be considered successfully parented if they're a nice person and have chosen that particular lifestyle because they believe that to participate in the corporate rat race is to advocate for it, and that's a bridge too far; as opposed to having that lifestyle thrust upon them because that's their highest level of incompetence* *Just an example, not a personal anecdote

indus_river 8y ago

The New York Times is a mouth piece of orchestrated propaganda, and the prevailing wind they’re trying to sell people on is: Most people are really quite stupid, knowing this, we have to intuit that a large number of stupid people are hearing a message that “helcopter parenting” is frowned on, and this might serve as a cue to tragically stupid parents to cut back on general guidance, possibly to the point of neglect. Given that our audience is comprised of many stupid people, we need to send a clear signal to circumvent the optics of overparenting. The only message stupid people will understand is a diametrically opposed message. To whit: there is no such thing as overparenting, more is better. Smothering your children is okay. If anything, a propaganda voice like this might serve as a clarion call to shelter children to the point that they grow up stunted, naive and a little immature or socially inept, but honestly it will lead to fewer criminals and lower prison populations, thus the generalized bulletin may be conscionably delivered to the lowest common denominator, however wrong it might prove, upon deep examination.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
God that's depressing. Which probably means it's on the money. It makes any discourse on the subtleties of any topic treated in such a way meaningless because the reason behind it is the sub-text as opposed to what is actually presented. Putting icing around a rock and throwing it through a window then saying "I've delivered your cake" when the whole point is the rock and the broken window.