3 ms·
Yes, but there are tons of cases that go either way, and sometime it is neither the thing or the individual, but the combination of the two which lead to undesi
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
Yes, but there are tons of cases that go either way, and sometime it is neither the thing or the individual, but the combination of the two which lead to undesired outcomes.
In this case, I think it is reasonable to believe that training certain skills in the absence of distractions and impediments makes sense.
- makeitdouble 2y agoProvided these skills really stick, will the kid be able to activate them when they'll be in an environment full of distractions and impediments ? How well will they deal with SNS, work notifications, scams, dark patterns and addictive stuff thrown at them at every corner ? This reminds me of Mean Girls, where a kid raised with lions is thrown into the college environment. Except we now have so many other layers of complications to also deal with.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI would think it is easier to learn self control with a more fully developed brain than the other way around. It isn't a perfect analogy, but it is similar to we don't give unlimited junk food to children either, as it can be easier to learn moderation starting with healthy habits than the other way around.
- makeitdouble 2y agoI fully agree with you, in that moderation is important. More precisely, teaching how to approach the "junk" stuff is IMO necessary, and better done when parental advice is well received, instead of waiting for the latest possible time. We teach kids to not moderate junk food intake at the earlier age, they get to taste it but also learn about it in a friendly environment. Forbidding it until they're on their own and discover it the wildest way is a recipe for disaster, the same way discovering alcohol for the first time in college during wild parties is one of the worst experience we can imagine.