6 ms·

Parents should push their children to succeed through positive reinforcement and good example, not through fear.

gcheong 18y ago
A big problem is that the whole "spare the rod spoil the child" mindset has become so much a given that people have a hard time believing any "softer" approach for anything other than babies and infants might work, even in the face of evidence that the current approach is not working.
- Retric 18y ago
  I don't think things are failing so blaming "the current approach" seems misguided. I can't think of a single area where things where better 100 years ago than they are today in the US. Most trends are fairly positive over the last 30 years. EX: People talk about an increase in the dropout rate but it's slowly falling across the US. (http://nces.ed.gov/ssbr/pages/dropout.asp http://nces.ed.gov/ssbr/pages/dropout.asp) Edit: more recent numbers http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=16 http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=16 Violent Crime is falling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States There might be an long term increase in the unemployment rate http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248 http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248 but if so it's swamped by swings in the economy.
  - bokonist 18y ago
    I can't think of a single area where things where better 100 years ago than they are today in the US. 1) architecture 2) divorce rates 3) illegitimacy rates 3) inner city crime rates 4) the strength of civic organizations 5) the entire education system 6) taxes 7) black male employment rates ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE1D81E3CF93BA15751C0A9629C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE1D81E3CF... ) 8) average firm size 9) the non-existence of several hundred nuclear weapons pointing at our cities 10) the financial/monetary system There are of course many things that are better about 2009 than 1909. But it is foolish to see history as a unidirectional march towards progress ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history ). The reality is much more complicated.
    - Retric 18y ago
      If you look at small enough chunks of the system you can find problems, but art, heath, education, lifespan, income, wealth, have all increased dramatically. More specifically: Edit: Pick a social, religious, ethnic, and or age group you would rather be randomly dropped off in 1908 than 2008. 1) I strongly disagree. 2) Divorce rates have increased but the length of the average marriage stayed fairly constant. People divorce has basically replaced death which IMO is an improvement. 3a illegitimacy) This is part of a trade off where marriage is less important. 3b inner city crime rates) this has to do with concentrating relative poverty. Overall violent crime keeps falling and intercity poor of 2008 is far better off than poor of 1908. 4) I don't know what your talking about. 5) Is improving by every measurement. Have you looked at dropout rates from 1908? 6) That's debatable, I think taxes are far more useful now than they where in 1908 and most people are far more wealthy after taxes. When the value of the average person's after tax income is so much higher then it's hard to say taxes are a problem. 7) People on welfare today are far better off financially than the average worker from 1908. Directly comparing an unemployed person of 2008 with an unemployed person of 1908 seems to be missing the point. 8) Is this just a matter of taste or is there an actual problem? 9) Our military threats have changed, but considering we where about to go to WWI I think we are probably far more safe today. 10) Stronger now than it was in 1908. PS: Then again I could just be a child of my age, I might prefer now to the world 100 years from now. But, when you look at people actually lived the past was far from pleasant.
      - bokonist 18y ago
        1) Architecture is a matter of taste, so debate is usually not fruitful. But when I walk through an old city, I find all the old buildings much more pleasing to the eye than the new buildings. For an extreme example, compare Boston City Hall ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Boston_City_Hall.JPG/800px-Boston_City_Hall.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Bos... ) to the State House ( http://graphics.worldweb.com/PhotoImages/Articles/USA/Boston_Tours_State_House.jpg http://graphics.worldweb.com/PhotoImages/Articles/USA/Boston... ) 2) The two have nothing to do with each other. While the rise in life expectancy happened gradually over the course of the century, the rise in divorce rates was very sharp from 1965 to 1980. 3a) Again, the rise in illegitimacy happened between 1965 and 1980 and has generally been a social disaster. 3b) In terms of material well being perhaps. In terms of culture, absolutely not. Read "Gang Lead for a Day" and then compare to "How the Other Half Lives". And violent crime certainly has not been falling in the inner cities: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=271919 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=271919 4) Read Robert Putnams's Bowling Alone. Basically TV and video games have replaced the old civic organizations like the Masons or bowling leagues. 5) High drop out rates are a feature. It means young adults aren't required by law to waste their life earning a meaningless credential just to enter their chosen profession. I discuss this in full in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=358326 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=358326 6) What government spending do you find so useful? The military bases in 170 countries? The carrier fleet that would last about 30 minutes in modern cruise missile warfare? The space shuttle program that only makes news when a shuttle explodes every ten years? The corn and ethanol subsidies? The housing/welfare programs that have created a permanent urban underclass? Medicare/medicaid, which consume 7% of GDP on healthcare, yet only manage to cover a fraction of the population? 7) My point was that the overall employment rate among black men has declined dramatically. This is a disaster. Even if their material well being is ok, being unemployed is emasculating. 8) The problem is the Dilbertization of the economy. The soulless organization man companies, filled with pointy haired bosses, are a child of World War II. 9) Well I certainly hope so. 10) Both U.S. today and U.S. pre-Fed had a nasty business cycle. But the advantage of the system back then was that in the panic of 1907 Wall St. bailed itself out. No need for several trillion dollars of government money. Other advantages of 1907 include no inflation, no Sarbox, and companies actually paying dividends. Overall, I would still prefer to live in 2009. But that's almost entirely due to the exponential growth of technology. But remember that technology can move in a different direction than the other components of a society. Technology is much, much better today. But the political system is far, far worse. Culture is better in some ways ( Rock & Roll, movies, blogs) and worse in others (fewer civic organizations, awful architecture). There is no reason we could not restore the political system of 1909 while keeping all our new fangled toys. Then we would have the best of both worlds. On the other hand, if the political situation continues to deteriorate, eventually technological growth will start to slow down or even reverse. That is scenario that must be averted.
puffythefish 18y ago
Ugh. This is why I hate the grading system. The basic premise the entire system relies on is fear of failure, which, to me, seems to be completely counter-productive to learning. When I am actually learning something, for instance programming, I don't learn by marginally getting better and going to a slightly higher level before, still succeeding at every step — I learn immersing myself in something completely over my head that I don't understand, and absolutely, miserably failing. When I finally get it, not only is the experience extremely gratifying, but I actually learn it; it's very difficult to forget something you now understand that only moments ago looked nearly impossible. In school, doing this is not only discouraged but nearly impossible — fail a class for even a few weeks and it will be very difficult to get your grade up and be able to get in any more honors classes; essentially, through the grading system you're labeled satisfactory (A/B, depending on your standards), average (C) or a failure (F), even though the only way to learn is through your mistakes. I think a good indicator of how well you're learning something is to ask yourself, "If I asked myself about this subject 6 months ago, would I think I was an idiot?". In school, I can think of maybe 3 subjects that's true in, but not by much. With something I'm teaching myself through failing, like programming, I would probably think I was an idiot less than one month ago.
- pg 18y ago
  I wasn't motivated by fear. It was more like trying to be high scorer on a video game. Which is also somewhat of a stupid motivation, but probably not as stupid. I think the problem is not grades per se but the difference between what they're supposed to measure and what they actually do. That difference can be small (I can remember college classes where it was), but it takes an effort.
  - tungstenfurnace 18y ago
    Who needs grades anyway? Do employers need grades? I think the purpose of grades is primarily for bureaucrats to compare schools. Teachers are the ones being paid. Grade them, not the pupils. Children need to know which classes are worth attending.

A big problem is that the whole "spare the rod spoil the child" mindset has become so much a given that people have a hard time believing any "softer" approach for anything other than babies and infants might work, even in the face of evidence that the current approach is not working.

Retric 18y ago
I don't think things are failing so blaming "the current approach" seems misguided. I can't think of a single area where things where better 100 years ago than they are today in the US. Most trends are fairly positive over the last 30 years. EX: People talk about an increase in the dropout rate but it's slowly falling across the US. (http://nces.ed.gov/ssbr/pages/dropout.asp http://nces.ed.gov/ssbr/pages/dropout.asp) Edit: more recent numbers http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=16 http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=16 Violent Crime is falling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States There might be an long term increase in the unemployment rate http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248 http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248 but if so it's swamped by swings in the economy.
- bokonist 18y ago
  I can't think of a single area where things where better 100 years ago than they are today in the US. 1) architecture 2) divorce rates 3) illegitimacy rates 3) inner city crime rates 4) the strength of civic organizations 5) the entire education system 6) taxes 7) black male employment rates ( http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE1D81E3CF93BA15751C0A9629C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE1D81E3CF... ) 8) average firm size 9) the non-existence of several hundred nuclear weapons pointing at our cities 10) the financial/monetary system There are of course many things that are better about 2009 than 1909. But it is foolish to see history as a unidirectional march towards progress ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history ). The reality is much more complicated.
  - Retric 18y ago
    If you look at small enough chunks of the system you can find problems, but art, heath, education, lifespan, income, wealth, have all increased dramatically. More specifically: Edit: Pick a social, religious, ethnic, and or age group you would rather be randomly dropped off in 1908 than 2008. 1) I strongly disagree. 2) Divorce rates have increased but the length of the average marriage stayed fairly constant. People divorce has basically replaced death which IMO is an improvement. 3a illegitimacy) This is part of a trade off where marriage is less important. 3b inner city crime rates) this has to do with concentrating relative poverty. Overall violent crime keeps falling and intercity poor of 2008 is far better off than poor of 1908. 4) I don't know what your talking about. 5) Is improving by every measurement. Have you looked at dropout rates from 1908? 6) That's debatable, I think taxes are far more useful now than they where in 1908 and most people are far more wealthy after taxes. When the value of the average person's after tax income is so much higher then it's hard to say taxes are a problem. 7) People on welfare today are far better off financially than the average worker from 1908. Directly comparing an unemployed person of 2008 with an unemployed person of 1908 seems to be missing the point. 8) Is this just a matter of taste or is there an actual problem? 9) Our military threats have changed, but considering we where about to go to WWI I think we are probably far more safe today. 10) Stronger now than it was in 1908. PS: Then again I could just be a child of my age, I might prefer now to the world 100 years from now. But, when you look at people actually lived the past was far from pleasant.
    - bokonist 18y ago
      1) Architecture is a matter of taste, so debate is usually not fruitful. But when I walk through an old city, I find all the old buildings much more pleasing to the eye than the new buildings. For an extreme example, compare Boston City Hall ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Boston_City_Hall.JPG/800px-Boston_City_Hall.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Bos... ) to the State House ( http://graphics.worldweb.com/PhotoImages/Articles/USA/Boston_Tours_State_House.jpg http://graphics.worldweb.com/PhotoImages/Articles/USA/Boston... ) 2) The two have nothing to do with each other. While the rise in life expectancy happened gradually over the course of the century, the rise in divorce rates was very sharp from 1965 to 1980. 3a) Again, the rise in illegitimacy happened between 1965 and 1980 and has generally been a social disaster. 3b) In terms of material well being perhaps. In terms of culture, absolutely not. Read "Gang Lead for a Day" and then compare to "How the Other Half Lives". And violent crime certainly has not been falling in the inner cities: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=271919 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=271919 4) Read Robert Putnams's Bowling Alone. Basically TV and video games have replaced the old civic organizations like the Masons or bowling leagues. 5) High drop out rates are a feature. It means young adults aren't required by law to waste their life earning a meaningless credential just to enter their chosen profession. I discuss this in full in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=358326 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=358326 6) What government spending do you find so useful? The military bases in 170 countries? The carrier fleet that would last about 30 minutes in modern cruise missile warfare? The space shuttle program that only makes news when a shuttle explodes every ten years? The corn and ethanol subsidies? The housing/welfare programs that have created a permanent urban underclass? Medicare/medicaid, which consume 7% of GDP on healthcare, yet only manage to cover a fraction of the population? 7) My point was that the overall employment rate among black men has declined dramatically. This is a disaster. Even if their material well being is ok, being unemployed is emasculating. 8) The problem is the Dilbertization of the economy. The soulless organization man companies, filled with pointy haired bosses, are a child of World War II. 9) Well I certainly hope so. 10) Both U.S. today and U.S. pre-Fed had a nasty business cycle. But the advantage of the system back then was that in the panic of 1907 Wall St. bailed itself out. No need for several trillion dollars of government money. Other advantages of 1907 include no inflation, no Sarbox, and companies actually paying dividends. Overall, I would still prefer to live in 2009. But that's almost entirely due to the exponential growth of technology. But remember that technology can move in a different direction than the other components of a society. Technology is much, much better today. But the political system is far, far worse. Culture is better in some ways ( Rock & Roll, movies, blogs) and worse in others (fewer civic organizations, awful architecture). There is no reason we could not restore the political system of 1909 while keeping all our new fangled toys. Then we would have the best of both worlds. On the other hand, if the political situation continues to deteriorate, eventually technological growth will start to slow down or even reverse. That is scenario that must be averted.

puffythefish 18y ago

Ugh. This is why I hate the grading system. The basic premise the entire system relies on is fear of failure, which, to me, seems to be completely counter-productive to learning. When I am actually learning something, for instance programming, I don't learn by marginally getting better and going to a slightly higher level before, still succeeding at every step — I learn immersing myself in something completely over my head that I don't understand, and absolutely, miserably failing. When I finally get it, not only is the experience extremely gratifying, but I actually learn it; it's very difficult to forget something you now understand that only moments ago looked nearly impossible. In school, doing this is not only discouraged but nearly impossible — fail a class for even a few weeks and it will be very difficult to get your grade up and be able to get in any more honors classes; essentially, through the grading system you're labeled satisfactory (A/B, depending on your standards), average (C) or a failure (F), even though the only way to learn is through your mistakes. I think a good indicator of how well you're learning something is to ask yourself, "If I asked myself about this subject 6 months ago, would I think I was an idiot?". In school, I can think of maybe 3 subjects that's true in, but not by much. With something I'm teaching myself through failing, like programming, I would probably think I was an idiot less than one month ago.

pg 18y ago
I wasn't motivated by fear. It was more like trying to be high scorer on a video game. Which is also somewhat of a stupid motivation, but probably not as stupid. I think the problem is not grades per se but the difference between what they're supposed to measure and what they actually do. That difference can be small (I can remember college classes where it was), but it takes an effort.
- tungstenfurnace 18y ago
  Who needs grades anyway? Do employers need grades? I think the purpose of grades is primarily for bureaucrats to compare schools. Teachers are the ones being paid. Grade them, not the pupils. Children need to know which classes are worth attending.