5 ms·
>You've never understood why parents protect children from things that they will eventually be exposed to as adults? If your goal is to give your children unfil
by lerptime 6y ago
>You've never understood why parents protect children from things that they will eventually be exposed to as adults? If your goal is to give your children unfiltered access to "reality," parents are entirely unnecessary after birth.
Hey I have a different opinion than you. I think you should respect that rather than say parents are unnecessary after birth. That's rude.
First off think about it logically. Why indeed do parents have to protect children from things they will not only be exposed to as adults but things they will inevitably seek and successfully expose themselves to BEFORE they become adults.
Your job as a parent is to protect your kid from actual harm and to teach your kid and feed your kid and guide your kid. Your optional side job is to protect your kid from "reality" that's your own personal choice and there are actual scientific observations of the result.
The podcast below actually illustrates a scientific study on the subject:
https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/378577902/how-to-become-batman https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/378577902/how-to-be...
A part of it actually follows two blind kids with different parents and different parenting choices.
One parent chose to protect his blind kid from reality.
The other parent gave the blind kid a bike for a birthday present two weeks after the crazy blind kid lost his two front teeth from running into a wall.
Do you want to know the end result of sheltering a blind kid versus encouraging one to explore reality? Watch the podcast to find out. Very interesting if your a parent. Let's just say one blind kid (now adult) now walks around the world as if he can see and literally uses echolocation to navigate the world. The other blind kid walks the world as if he's a crippled blind man.
Here's another one: https://www.npr.org/2015/01/16/377517810/world-with-no-fear https://www.npr.org/2015/01/16/377517810/world-with-no-fear
Also about kids. Talking about how kids today only wander around their homes while kids in the 60s and 70s wander around the whole town by themselves. It's attributed to different parenting styles and fear of exposing kids to the real world.
Parents in the 70s were much less fearful about protecting kids from reality. Parents today are scared of everything. But the illogical difference here is that from the 70s to now, crime has actually gone down. Your kids today are more safe than ever before but parents are more restrictive and scared than they ever were before.
- soledades 6y agoWow, A real life libertarian true believer, look at that. I didn't know there was such a thing
- nendroid 6y agoWhatever works is what I believe. I feel lots of parents just don't have the balls to not coddle their children, and they justify this fear with rude comments like this. FYI the two blind kids actually knew each other when they were kids, and I "kid" you not the kid that was the "libertarian" bullied and beat up the other one because he was thinking "wtf, why is this other kid helpless." Listen to both podcasts. Worth it for any parent as it gives a true more "scientific" perspective on the coddling going on with kids today.
- virgil_disgr4ce 6y agoA handy rule of thumb I employ is that any hot take that includes the phrase "kids today" can be immediately ignored. Any generalization of that scope is laughable.
- nendroid 6y agoDoesn't make sense because kids today are exactly the same as kids in the past. This is science and its about research that the scientist did to prove something.
- nineplay 6y ago( Edited after being fairly criticized for not contributing to the conversation ) It's problematic to say that scientists have 'proved' anything. Scientist's conclusions are always based on the available data, and at any point new data may come along that disproves their conclusion. Scientists know this of course, which is why reputable ones are never going to step forward and announce "I have proved..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence > evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory
- nendroid 6y agoScientists can't prove anything. They can only make statistical correlations and establish causation to a degree. When I use the word "prove" i don't mean like proving things in math. Nobody means this, it's obvious to everyone what they mean. Prove in this context means well established. For example if I say scientists have proved the theory of gravity. What's going on here is extreme pedantry. Prove has meaning in different contexts, you have chosen the most technical pedantic context to suit some misguided purpose rather than the most obvious context. There's no point in taking this further.
- nineplay 6y agoI am not trying to be pedantic. There are many contexts in which 'prove' might be a reasonable term colloquially. However you are referring to a social science when you talk about differences between kids of different generations. I think using 'proved' in that context puts you on pretty shakey ground.