33 ms·

I tried reading this, but for some reason I can't connect with it. The ideas that the author wrote seems very foreign to me (born and raised in Asia). For exam

I tried reading this, but for some reason I can't connect with it. The ideas that the author wrote seems very foreign to me (born and raised in Asia). For example, this doesn't ring a bell : > You thought that doing this – taking drugs, lying to your best friend – would give you the life you wanted; and then it doesn’t Or this: > You have to be bad in order to discover what kind of good you want to be (or are able to be). To me, what was considered "good" was clearly laid out by parents and schools. I think it's the same here in the US: a large portion of the population follow the definition of "good" from their parents and churches (a bit less so from schools) I would love to have some help to understand the article's viewpoint better.

polishdude20 3y ago
I think the articles viewpoint is that kids not only need to be told the rules and follow them blindly but also need to test the rules and see if they are really as important as everyone says. It's the same thinking when people say you have to make your own mistakes to truly learn.
- thanhhaimai 3y ago
  > but also need to test the rules and see if they are really as important as everyone says. Thank you. Then I don't quite agree with the article on this. I don't need to "test the rules" myself to see if they are ready as important as everyone says. I can observe. For example: I don't need to drive without a seatbelt to "test" whether seatbelt is as important as everyone says. I can observe that people without seatbelt have worse outcomes from accidents. I think this might also be related to whether the kid grow up with parents they can trust and are able to explain the reasons behind "rules" to them. I was fortunate that my parents always tried their best to explain why I should or should not do something. I questioned them a lot, but defaulted to "trust" when they didnt have time to explain.
  - daseiner1 3y ago
    > For example: I don't need to drive without a seatbelt to "test" whether seatbelt is as important as everyone says. There is a trivial objection to every ethical position. The parent commenter is not suggesting every rule needs to be tested. But we can imagine plenty of situations where a form of rebellion would be endorsed by most, or may at least be supposed to be constructive to one’s identity. For instance, rejecting one’s family’s religious practices. Preferring tinkering alone in a milieu that prefers more extraverted, social activities and might view the aforementioned as a concerning form of lonerism. Living, briefly, a nomadic lifestyle. Historically (and, unfortunately, still into the present in some places), being sociable with people of differing race was/is met with censure and even threat of violence. And so on. Certain forms of cultural transgression are imperative, in my opinion, for the advancement and development of society, culture, and (as a downstream effect), technology. There are certainly advantages to a more conservative, traditionalist societal arrangement as well. It’s a matter of balance.
    - RangerScience 3y ago
      There’s a pretty good observation in the book “Iron John” that’s about how you have to take your freedom from your parents (in the myth, it’s something you steal) - if it’s given, there’s always the shadow of it being taken away again. If it’s something you’ve taken, it’s yours now. Testing “seatbelts” doesn’t really take any freedom/adulthood for yourself. Spending your earned money on something your parents don’t approve of, does.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Some other "rules": - you need to get a college degree if you want to get a good job. - work hard and you will be rewarded by your efforts. - you can be good at anything if you stick long enough with it. Would you agree that there is no way to reliably "observe" if these rules are true?
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    But you wrote above: > follow the definition of "good" from their parents and churches And different churches in your community teach different, contradictory things. Not just in small details but in really big things. And your two parents don't agree on everything, and your friends' parents have different views as well, sometimes dramatically so. And sometimes you raise their views make more sense than your own parents' in some areas. So how are you going to figure out which things to follow and which things to ignore? There's a lot you just have to test and figure it for yourself. Especially since people are born with very different temperaments, so the rules one person follows may be very different from another -- like whether they consider getting up extremely early to be virtuous, or bad for their health.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    There are simple rules which breaking doesn't matter much, but there are certainly rules that are worth questioning. Seatbelt rule is quite meaningless to question, but then there are all sorts of rules about substances for example which you are told not to consume. Alcohol as a teenager or drugs. We need rules around substance usage, but for example many of those substances can give you experiences where you learn about human nature and what you really are.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    Even if they explain the reasons, doesn't mean the kid will listen; reason may not apply. May also depend on their personality, temprament, communication style, etc. You can try "analyzer" style communications with a "promoter" style teenager but they have tuned out after 10 seconds already and think you're a buzzkill, intentions aside. "Fuck around and find out" is a great phrase to use in such cases.
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    How about the rules that you do not have an example to observe from?
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    How about the rules that you do not have an example to observe from? Someone had to test the rules for you to observe the test.
  - radiojosh 3y ago
    > I think this might also be related to whether the kid grow up with parents they can trust and are able to explain the reasons behind "rules" to them. I think you hit the nail on the head here. Even if a parent's advice is sound, a child may not trust the source for other reasons. If the parent's own behavior defies their advice, if the parent is overbearing, if the parent's expectations are unreasonable, if the parent never listens to the child... Shitty parents can make it extremely unpleasant to do what is right. And we haven't even gotten to actual trauma. People often have difficulty functioning in society when fear and anxiety are a part of their everyday life because their parents were abusive. And the thing is, traumatized people might really want to do the right thing, but they can't and they don't know why.
- Doxin 3y ago
  So while I've got no experience with kids -- and clearly there's no comparison -- I've gotten some experience in dog training. The one difference I nearly always see between people who successfully train their dog and those who don't is that the successful group allows their dog to fuck up. Not without getting mad at them after of course, but the unsuccessful group will actively prevent the behavior they'd get mad at. I figure something like that applies to kids too.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Yeah, but teenagers will intrinsically try and rebel against what is "good"; what I think this article drives at, in simpler terms, is that just telling someone they should or shouldn't do this or that isn't enough. Teenagers will resist this "just so" authority, ask "why though?", but even if a complete answer is given they will have to find out for themselves. "Why should I go to bed at this time?" they will ask. Then they try staying up all night and realize they're useless the next day. "Why shouldn't I drink?" they ask, then drink a lot and forget how they got home, but won't forget how sick they are the next day. And this isn't a one off thing, many people continue this thing until well in their twenties; some never learn. But those that do and have kids of their own will continue the cycle; don't do this, do do that, because I found out the hard way that if you don't do as I'm trying to tell you, bad things will happen and your life may be worse off. In theory. (many caveats there, I am not a psychologist, I'm just a 30 some year old who considered himself a good kid but ended up pretty under-matured with a load of relationship problems to show for it. And now a teenager in my house too, who is a lot more rebellious, lol)
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Is it intrinsic, or is a reaction to an oversold notion of "good"? I didn't rebel until I realized how much of a lie DARE was. I'm now 36 and I still think that most of the crimes I committed as a teen were justified (except for the handful that weren't, those keep me up at night).
h0l0cube 3y ago
I've been reading Determined by Robert Sapolsky. He mentions a study about the behavioral differences on average between peoples that come from rice-growing and wheat-growing regions of China. When two chairs were placed obstructively in a Starbucks, people from rice-growing regions would move around the chairs, whereas those from the wheat-growing regions would move the chairs. The explanation given is that rice-growing requires intergenerational cooperation to be tenable, and he highlights an example of terraces that were found to be maintained for over 2000 years. On the other hand, he notes that the US consists of a largely immigrant and pioneer populations, which are selected for individualism. It's important to note that neither of the cultures are 'better', and that also within populations there are great individual differences. In the chair example, the middle ground would be to consider the chairs a Chesterton's Fence (Why were they placed there? Is it to cover a spill?)

polishdude20 3y ago

I think the articles viewpoint is that kids not only need to be told the rules and follow them blindly but also need to test the rules and see if they are really as important as everyone says. It's the same thinking when people say you have to make your own mistakes to truly learn.

thanhhaimai 3y ago
> but also need to test the rules and see if they are really as important as everyone says. Thank you. Then I don't quite agree with the article on this. I don't need to "test the rules" myself to see if they are ready as important as everyone says. I can observe. For example: I don't need to drive without a seatbelt to "test" whether seatbelt is as important as everyone says. I can observe that people without seatbelt have worse outcomes from accidents. I think this might also be related to whether the kid grow up with parents they can trust and are able to explain the reasons behind "rules" to them. I was fortunate that my parents always tried their best to explain why I should or should not do something. I questioned them a lot, but defaulted to "trust" when they didnt have time to explain.
- daseiner1 3y ago
  > For example: I don't need to drive without a seatbelt to "test" whether seatbelt is as important as everyone says. There is a trivial objection to every ethical position. The parent commenter is not suggesting every rule needs to be tested. But we can imagine plenty of situations where a form of rebellion would be endorsed by most, or may at least be supposed to be constructive to one’s identity. For instance, rejecting one’s family’s religious practices. Preferring tinkering alone in a milieu that prefers more extraverted, social activities and might view the aforementioned as a concerning form of lonerism. Living, briefly, a nomadic lifestyle. Historically (and, unfortunately, still into the present in some places), being sociable with people of differing race was/is met with censure and even threat of violence. And so on. Certain forms of cultural transgression are imperative, in my opinion, for the advancement and development of society, culture, and (as a downstream effect), technology. There are certainly advantages to a more conservative, traditionalist societal arrangement as well. It’s a matter of balance.
  - RangerScience 3y ago
    There’s a pretty good observation in the book “Iron John” that’s about how you have to take your freedom from your parents (in the myth, it’s something you steal) - if it’s given, there’s always the shadow of it being taken away again. If it’s something you’ve taken, it’s yours now. Testing “seatbelts” doesn’t really take any freedom/adulthood for yourself. Spending your earned money on something your parents don’t approve of, does.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Some other "rules": - you need to get a college degree if you want to get a good job. - work hard and you will be rewarded by your efforts. - you can be good at anything if you stick long enough with it. Would you agree that there is no way to reliably "observe" if these rules are true?
- crazygringo 3y ago
  But you wrote above: > follow the definition of "good" from their parents and churches And different churches in your community teach different, contradictory things. Not just in small details but in really big things. And your two parents don't agree on everything, and your friends' parents have different views as well, sometimes dramatically so. And sometimes you raise their views make more sense than your own parents' in some areas. So how are you going to figure out which things to follow and which things to ignore? There's a lot you just have to test and figure it for yourself. Especially since people are born with very different temperaments, so the rules one person follows may be very different from another -- like whether they consider getting up extremely early to be virtuous, or bad for their health.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  There are simple rules which breaking doesn't matter much, but there are certainly rules that are worth questioning. Seatbelt rule is quite meaningless to question, but then there are all sorts of rules about substances for example which you are told not to consume. Alcohol as a teenager or drugs. We need rules around substance usage, but for example many of those substances can give you experiences where you learn about human nature and what you really are.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Even if they explain the reasons, doesn't mean the kid will listen; reason may not apply. May also depend on their personality, temprament, communication style, etc. You can try "analyzer" style communications with a "promoter" style teenager but they have tuned out after 10 seconds already and think you're a buzzkill, intentions aside. "Fuck around and find out" is a great phrase to use in such cases.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  How about the rules that you do not have an example to observe from?
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  How about the rules that you do not have an example to observe from? Someone had to test the rules for you to observe the test.
- radiojosh 3y ago
  > I think this might also be related to whether the kid grow up with parents they can trust and are able to explain the reasons behind "rules" to them. I think you hit the nail on the head here. Even if a parent's advice is sound, a child may not trust the source for other reasons. If the parent's own behavior defies their advice, if the parent is overbearing, if the parent's expectations are unreasonable, if the parent never listens to the child... Shitty parents can make it extremely unpleasant to do what is right. And we haven't even gotten to actual trauma. People often have difficulty functioning in society when fear and anxiety are a part of their everyday life because their parents were abusive. And the thing is, traumatized people might really want to do the right thing, but they can't and they don't know why.
Doxin 3y ago
So while I've got no experience with kids -- and clearly there's no comparison -- I've gotten some experience in dog training. The one difference I nearly always see between people who successfully train their dog and those who don't is that the successful group allows their dog to fuck up. Not without getting mad at them after of course, but the unsuccessful group will actively prevent the behavior they'd get mad at. I figure something like that applies to kids too.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Yeah, but teenagers will intrinsically try and rebel against what is "good"; what I think this article drives at, in simpler terms, is that just telling someone they should or shouldn't do this or that isn't enough. Teenagers will resist this "just so" authority, ask "why though?", but even if a complete answer is given they will have to find out for themselves. "Why should I go to bed at this time?" they will ask. Then they try staying up all night and realize they're useless the next day. "Why shouldn't I drink?" they ask, then drink a lot and forget how they got home, but won't forget how sick they are the next day. And this isn't a one off thing, many people continue this thing until well in their twenties; some never learn. But those that do and have kids of their own will continue the cycle; don't do this, do do that, because I found out the hard way that if you don't do as I'm trying to tell you, bad things will happen and your life may be worse off. In theory. (many caveats there, I am not a psychologist, I'm just a 30 some year old who considered himself a good kid but ended up pretty under-matured with a load of relationship problems to show for it. And now a teenager in my house too, who is a lot more rebellious, lol)

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
Is it intrinsic, or is a reaction to an oversold notion of "good"? I didn't rebel until I realized how much of a lie DARE was. I'm now 36 and I still think that most of the crimes I committed as a teen were justified (except for the handful that weren't, those keep me up at night).

h0l0cube 3y ago

I've been reading Determined by Robert Sapolsky. He mentions a study about the behavioral differences on average between peoples that come from rice-growing and wheat-growing regions of China. When two chairs were placed obstructively in a Starbucks, people from rice-growing regions would move around the chairs, whereas those from the wheat-growing regions would move the chairs. The explanation given is that rice-growing requires intergenerational cooperation to be tenable, and he highlights an example of terraces that were found to be maintained for over 2000 years. On the other hand, he notes that the US consists of a largely immigrant and pioneer populations, which are selected for individualism. It's important to note that neither of the cultures are 'better', and that also within populations there are great individual differences. In the chair example, the middle ground would be to consider the chairs a Chesterton's Fence (Why were they placed there? Is it to cover a spill?)