3 ms·

"Proper socialization", unqualified, is a normative statement that has no basis other than some arbitrary definition of "proper" vis a vis "socialization" skill

by uoaei 4y ago

"Proper socialization", unqualified, is a normative statement that has no basis other than some arbitrary definition of "proper" vis a vis "socialization" skills. We would be remiss to ignore the very obvious factor that parents organize their children's social lives until they develop enough agency to do it for themselves. Of course, parenting patterns have a lot to do with the agency of their children to begin with. So how can anyone, with a straight face, assert that kids are somehow lacking when it's the parents that instill these skills and values into their kids? You're going to have to do better than polemics.

giantg2 4y ago
"unqualified" You can look at the comment history for context. To simplify, it's the amount of in-person socialization. "So how can anyone, with a straight face, assert that kids are somehow lacking when it's the parents that instill these skills and values into their kids?" Polemic? Areyou talking about your own comment, as it makes no sense. There are obviously parents who are not promoting social skills, or where their kids are not living up to their expectations. It's not like they say "make it so" and the kids are all perfect. There are also practical limits to their control and influence due to other societal factors (media, school, peers, lack of time/attention due to various factors). You're going to have to do a lot better than making a comment you thought was clever but had no logical base.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Try as you might to employ rhetoric and deceit, you haven't actually defined what social skills are "proper" and by implication which are "improper", which makes your argument nothing more than unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable assertions of under-defined concepts. I'm not debating you, just pointing out how little is said in so many words. It's a telling sign of the times that even on "rationalist" communities such as this one, such obvious nothing-burgers are considered legitimate talking points.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Right... in the small chance you aren't trolling, Google is your friend. https://dictionary.apa.org/social-skills https://dictionary.apa.org/social-skills https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron-Buchko/publication/349012870_Here_comes_Generation_Z_Millennials_as_managers/links/6366ff262f4bca7fd036dc15/Here-comes-Generation-Z-Millennials-as-managers.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron-Buchko/publicatio...
    - uoaei 4y ago
      You know as well as I do that social skills are culture- and context-dependent. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of defining "proper" social skills. For instance, some people value "checking in" and "empathetic speech" as regular, proper features of conversation, while for some that can be grating and wholly improper. Some see no issue with talking down to service industry employees, while some consider that a grave sin. That you've avoided answering what notion of "proper" you're interested in discussing this far into the comment thread is telling that you just want to assert your own viewpoint on this inherently subjective matter. It's intellectually dishonest which ultimately makes it irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Standards differ over time and between people.

by uoaei 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

"unqualified" You can look at the comment history for context. To simplify, it's the amount of in-person socialization. "So how can anyone, with a straight face, assert that kids are somehow lacking when it's the parents that instill these skills and values into their kids?" Polemic? Areyou talking about your own comment, as it makes no sense. There are obviously parents who are not promoting social skills, or where their kids are not living up to their expectations. It's not like they say "make it so" and the kids are all perfect. There are also practical limits to their control and influence due to other societal factors (media, school, peers, lack of time/attention due to various factors). You're going to have to do a lot better than making a comment you thought was clever but had no logical base.

uoaei 4y ago
Try as you might to employ rhetoric and deceit, you haven't actually defined what social skills are "proper" and by implication which are "improper", which makes your argument nothing more than unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable assertions of under-defined concepts. I'm not debating you, just pointing out how little is said in so many words. It's a telling sign of the times that even on "rationalist" communities such as this one, such obvious nothing-burgers are considered legitimate talking points.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Right... in the small chance you aren't trolling, Google is your friend. https://dictionary.apa.org/social-skills https://dictionary.apa.org/social-skills https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron-Buchko/publication/349012870_Here_comes_Generation_Z_Millennials_as_managers/links/6366ff262f4bca7fd036dc15/Here-comes-Generation-Z-Millennials-as-managers.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron-Buchko/publicatio...
  - uoaei 4y ago
    You know as well as I do that social skills are culture- and context-dependent. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of defining "proper" social skills. For instance, some people value "checking in" and "empathetic speech" as regular, proper features of conversation, while for some that can be grating and wholly improper. Some see no issue with talking down to service industry employees, while some consider that a grave sin. That you've avoided answering what notion of "proper" you're interested in discussing this far into the comment thread is telling that you just want to assert your own viewpoint on this inherently subjective matter. It's intellectually dishonest which ultimately makes it irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Standards differ over time and between people.