4 ms·

if i remember the article correctly: - no unstructured free time - always in groups that are not just your friends - always supervised If your interests are

if i remember the article correctly: - no unstructured free time - always in groups that are not just your friends - always supervised If your interests are aligned and you fit in with the average teens it might be great. If you need structure in your life to stay on track maybe too. But want to find yourself, becoming an independent adult and have nerdy interests it's probably hell. I'm glad I built tree houses, skipped a night of sleep and cycled in to the sunrise, learned to program and do art (both as an auto-didactic. nothing I'm proud of, but certainly something that suits me so much better than fixed-learning-speed group courses. By definition those are too fast for half, to slow for the rest or to slow for everyone but the slowest). Of course I came across a joint, alcoholics and other broken people while doing so, but that's alright, too.

ipnon 6y ago
You did not remember the article correctly. edit: A summary of the changes: >Laws were changed. It became illegal to buy tobacco under the age of 18 and alcohol under the age of 20, and tobacco and alcohol advertising was banned. Links between parents and school were strengthened through parental organizations which by law had to be established in every school, along with school councils with parent representatives. Parents were encouraged to attend talks on the importance of spending a quantity of time with their children rather than occasional “quality time”, on talking to their kids about their lives, on knowing who their kids were friends with, and on keeping their children home in the evenings. >A law was also passed prohibiting children aged between 13 and 16 from being outside after 10 p.m. in winter and midnight in summer. It’s still in effect today. >Home and School, the national umbrella body for parental organizations, introduced agreements for parents to sign. The content varies depending on the age group, and individual organizations can decide what they want to include. For kids aged 13 and up, parents can pledge to follow all the recommendations, and also, for example, not to allow their kids to have unsupervised parties, not to buy alcohol for minors, and to keep an eye on the wellbeing of other children. >State funding was increased for organized sport, music, art, dance and other clubs, to give kids alternative ways to feel part of a group, and to feel good, rather than through using alcohol and drugs, and kids from low-income families received help to take part. In Reykjavik, for instance, where more than a third of the country’s population lives, a Leisure Card gives families 35,000 krona (£250) per year per child to pay for recreational activities.
- anotheryou 6y ago
  Well I'd counter it with: > Young people aren’t hanging out in the park right now, Gudberg explains, because they’re in after-school classes in these facilities, or in clubs for music, dance, or art. > A law was also passed prohibiting children aged between 13 and 16 from being outside after 10 p.m. in winter and midnight in summer. > not to allow their kids to have unsupervised parties > Birgir trains five or six times a week; Jón, who is in his first year of a business degree at the University of Iceland, trains five times a week. They both started regular after-school training when they were six years old. I think key is this sentence though: > Was there pressure to train when they’d rather have been doing something else? “No, we just had fun playing football,” says Birgir. Jón adds, “We tried it and got used to it, and so we kept on doing it.” It's certainly up to the parents to make it a really free choice (and up to the state to provide it). Maybe you are right and it's really mainly a good thing :). I hope it is.
  - ipnon 6y ago
    My point is that unstructured free time itself and parental supervision itself are unrelated to the problem. The solution that Iceland has found is more specific than that, and it is an important distinction.
- viburnum 6y ago
  Yeah, I’ve read elsewhere that simply time spent with parents (playing board games or football or hiking or whatever) is a huge factor.
sli 6y ago
Referring to people as broken seems like a wholly unnecessary moral judgement against an awful lot people you've never met.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  OP's use of 'broken' is clearly describing a set of people he personally met. There is no broader implication as written.
- anotheryou 6y ago
  I could have substituted it for "addicts". Somehow "broken" rang more true to me. The addiction is just the symptom, something underlying went (in my eyes) wrong. Maybe "broken" sounds harsh, but I think they'd even agree. And as marcusverus writes: yes, I got to know them, some where even my friends.
  - d4mi3n 6y ago
    I'd avoid using this terminology with people who are hurting. The feeling of being "broken" tends to reinforce negative thoughts. A term I've heard and prefer is "suffering" or "in pain". Addicts suffer from their addiction and the environment that led them to that addiction.
    - anotheryou 6y ago
      yea, that might have been a better choice. Thanks.
    - dahauns 6y ago
      TBH, I find those terms worse. And the more I think about it, infuriatingly so. (So I apologize in advance for the following cynical rant :) ). Sure, they sound superficially more compassionate. But in reality they are defeatist, victimizing, agency-removing euphemisms that do a wonderful job of clouding the underlying issues. If you are that far into problems as described by various posters in this thread, pain and suffering are symptoms, and if that's all you're looking at, you're only going to treat those. (Ain't drugs nice?) Realizing you're "broken" is the first step towards identifying what exactly it is that's broken - and towards any further steps actually fixing it. (And yes, your environment and your relationship with it often is the part that's broken, too). And it's not only the self-image I'm talking about - I'm definitely not in the "they can only help themselves" camp. But it's oh so much more convenient to go for the symptoms (or switch the channel) when you're looking at people "in pain"...

ipnon 6y ago

You did not remember the article correctly. edit: A summary of the changes: >Laws were changed. It became illegal to buy tobacco under the age of 18 and alcohol under the age of 20, and tobacco and alcohol advertising was banned. Links between parents and school were strengthened through parental organizations which by law had to be established in every school, along with school councils with parent representatives. Parents were encouraged to attend talks on the importance of spending a quantity of time with their children rather than occasional “quality time”, on talking to their kids about their lives, on knowing who their kids were friends with, and on keeping their children home in the evenings. >A law was also passed prohibiting children aged between 13 and 16 from being outside after 10 p.m. in winter and midnight in summer. It’s still in effect today. >Home and School, the national umbrella body for parental organizations, introduced agreements for parents to sign. The content varies depending on the age group, and individual organizations can decide what they want to include. For kids aged 13 and up, parents can pledge to follow all the recommendations, and also, for example, not to allow their kids to have unsupervised parties, not to buy alcohol for minors, and to keep an eye on the wellbeing of other children. >State funding was increased for organized sport, music, art, dance and other clubs, to give kids alternative ways to feel part of a group, and to feel good, rather than through using alcohol and drugs, and kids from low-income families received help to take part. In Reykjavik, for instance, where more than a third of the country’s population lives, a Leisure Card gives families 35,000 krona (£250) per year per child to pay for recreational activities.

anotheryou 6y ago
Well I'd counter it with: > Young people aren’t hanging out in the park right now, Gudberg explains, because they’re in after-school classes in these facilities, or in clubs for music, dance, or art. > A law was also passed prohibiting children aged between 13 and 16 from being outside after 10 p.m. in winter and midnight in summer. > not to allow their kids to have unsupervised parties > Birgir trains five or six times a week; Jón, who is in his first year of a business degree at the University of Iceland, trains five times a week. They both started regular after-school training when they were six years old. I think key is this sentence though: > Was there pressure to train when they’d rather have been doing something else? “No, we just had fun playing football,” says Birgir. Jón adds, “We tried it and got used to it, and so we kept on doing it.” It's certainly up to the parents to make it a really free choice (and up to the state to provide it). Maybe you are right and it's really mainly a good thing :). I hope it is.
- ipnon 6y ago
  My point is that unstructured free time itself and parental supervision itself are unrelated to the problem. The solution that Iceland has found is more specific than that, and it is an important distinction.
viburnum 6y ago
Yeah, I’ve read elsewhere that simply time spent with parents (playing board games or football or hiking or whatever) is a huge factor.

sli 6y ago

Referring to people as broken seems like a wholly unnecessary moral judgement against an awful lot people you've never met.

marcusverus 6y ago
OP's use of 'broken' is clearly describing a set of people he personally met. There is no broader implication as written.
anotheryou 6y ago
I could have substituted it for "addicts". Somehow "broken" rang more true to me. The addiction is just the symptom, something underlying went (in my eyes) wrong. Maybe "broken" sounds harsh, but I think they'd even agree. And as marcusverus writes: yes, I got to know them, some where even my friends.
- d4mi3n 6y ago
  I'd avoid using this terminology with people who are hurting. The feeling of being "broken" tends to reinforce negative thoughts. A term I've heard and prefer is "suffering" or "in pain". Addicts suffer from their addiction and the environment that led them to that addiction.
  - anotheryou 6y ago
    yea, that might have been a better choice. Thanks.
  - dahauns 6y ago
    TBH, I find those terms worse. And the more I think about it, infuriatingly so. (So I apologize in advance for the following cynical rant :) ). Sure, they sound superficially more compassionate. But in reality they are defeatist, victimizing, agency-removing euphemisms that do a wonderful job of clouding the underlying issues. If you are that far into problems as described by various posters in this thread, pain and suffering are symptoms, and if that's all you're looking at, you're only going to treat those. (Ain't drugs nice?) Realizing you're "broken" is the first step towards identifying what exactly it is that's broken - and towards any further steps actually fixing it. (And yes, your environment and your relationship with it often is the part that's broken, too). And it's not only the self-image I'm talking about - I'm definitely not in the "they can only help themselves" camp. But it's oh so much more convenient to go for the symptoms (or switch the channel) when you're looking at people "in pain"...