Speaking of failure, I was on the admissions committee for my school, and one of the student's essays said "I know what it's like to experience failure. One time I missed a soccer goal."
Most of the kids in my ap/accelerated classes are all now engineers, have masters or are getting one and a lot of them work in research or the government.
Of course a lot of kids who weren't in the accelerated class are doing the same thing. Not so much because my school is full of smart folks but because it is an upper middle class white suburban area where most of the kids are able to go to college without taking out loans and have access to a lot of things many people in the US do not.
Most of the kids in my ap/accelerated classes are all now engineers, have masters or are getting one and a lot of them work in research or the government.
Of course a lot of kids who weren't in the accelerated class are doing the same thing. Not so much because my school is full of smart folks but because it is an upper middle class white suburban area where most of the kids are able to go to college without taking out loans and have access to a lot of things many people in the US do not.
We all know that it's impossible to screen everything, and that he important thing in general is to create an environment where you can have conversations with your kids and guide them away from terrible ideas before they take root. But if you could take one expression of those terrible ideas and just strike it from the list for a few years, why not do it?
Actions can be terrible. Ideas are not terrible.
I find it quite surprising that you're engaging in the sorts of activities that one would find in the Santorum household. "Just WHERE did you get that copy of Darwin, young man?!"
I have to disagree... some ideas are terrible, straight up.
I think it's possible to go far enough out on the fringe that we can locate some books most reasonable people agree are terrible. I'm not talking about a campaign of censorship either... I'm talking about one book.
In my view, the discussion about where the line should be, were it even possible to draw one, is different from one in which one group says in effect "there is no line". All literary works, to me, do not have equal value. Some of them are corrosive enough that I'd happily pick one and conceal it entirely, were that possible to do.
We can agree to disagree about the "terrible idea" issue.
I'm curious. Do you ever worry that by saying, "you are forbidden from reading X" you are increasing the likelihood that your child will seek out X?
Oh, absolutely. In practice, I've only ever drawn a couple of boundaries like this... for example, I set aside Nineteen Eighty-Four until late teenage years, as well as Catcher in the Rye. Neither was bannnnned, but I did tell them "you guys aren't ready for this yet".
In actual parenting we don't do a lot of "you're not allowed", without adding an "until x condition is met" clause. Sometimes that condition is an age, sometimes not. They mostly respect the boundaries because we're not draconian, and since we recognize they're going to push the limits just naturally as kids, we try and move them regularly and be frank about our reasoning, and make sure we're available for discussions rather than being a thing to fear or hide behavior from.
Pretty much the only absolute 100% "oh you're fucked now" lines in the sand are stealing from us, lying and not copping to it when you're busted, and touching the guns without supervision.
I hadn't thought about Catcher in the Rye. That book fucked me up.
Probably the best way to deal with that is, as you said, tell them they have to wait, and then raise them in such a way as to think that Holden Caulfield is a fuckhead.
Though, that'd be a very difficult conversation to have with a child. Telling them that they aren't in a position to understand something yet seems tantamount to the "you'll understand this when you're older" speech, and that hardly ever goes over well.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
I probably would have had an easier time in high school if I was born later. As it was I was at the end of the generation where the answer to ADHD was "you're kid is an undisciplined idiot and needs more structure in order to not be a fuckup."
If that authority figure saying that sucks, it was. This is a pretty controversial issue re: overdiagnoses and medical treatment of behavioral disorders that may or not actually be A Thing with the kid in question.
The actual old-timey answer to ADHD was to have the kid go out for sports or to have them cultivate a hobby or two, since they had all this boundless energy and these focus issues. Maybe it even worked! Or maybe it didn't.
We're going to Sports this thing out of you! Which I suppose is a way of surreptitiously adding structure anyway without making the kid feel bad.
the majority of the kids from my gifted program are extremely successful right now.
but there is no middle ground.
The kids I grew up with, who were let into the gifted program, ended up as hubristic little failures.
When the school wanted me to skip a grade and put me into the gifted program my parents wouldn't let them. I'm quite grateful for that.
I am curious what _J_ considers to be "failure". Are we talking like common usage "ended up washing out of highschool because of drug abuse and now lives in a shed in the woods behind their parents house" which was the usual kind of "failure" where I grew up? Or "they majored in communications"?
First thought: What's the difference between a high school dropout and a communications major?
The communications major has more student debt.
A couple of them dropped out of college. I think the others completed college and then found tedious jobs and joined the John Birch Society.
I guess i'm conceiving of "failure" as "mindlessly replicating their parent's life path."
I probably would have had an easier time in high school if I was born later. As it was I was at the end of the generation where the answer to ADHD was "you're kid is an undisciplined idiot and needs more structure in order to not be a fuckup."
If that authority figure saying that sucks, it was. This is a pretty controversial issue re: overdiagnoses and medical treatment of behavioral disorders that may or not actually be A Thing with the kid in question.
The actual old-timey answer to ADHD was to have the kid go out for sports or to have them cultivate a hobby or two, since they had all this boundless energy and these focus issues. Maybe it even worked! Or maybe it didn't.
Paradoxically, I believe ADHD is currently both over and under diagnosed.
Most of the kids in my ap/accelerated classes are all now engineers, have masters or are getting one and a lot of them work in research or the government.
Of course a lot of kids who weren't in the accelerated class are doing the same thing. Not so much because my school is full of smart folks but because it is an upper middle class white suburban area where most of the kids are able to go to college without taking out loans and have access to a lot of things many people in the US do not.
So uhh yay for being the upper middle class?
this is true for my school too.
so. . .what is your sig/av
Henry Kissinger. The sig is Henry Kissinger and Zhou Enlai drinking during Nixon's trip to China.
Also, what are you smoking that you think ideas can't be terrible? There isn't some massive dualistic divide between having an idea and acting on one. Shitty thought processes, if given priority, do tend to result in shitty actions.
We all know that it's impossible to screen everything, and that he important thing in general is to create an environment where you can have conversations with your kids and guide them away from terrible ideas before they take root. But if you could take one expression of those terrible ideas and just strike it from the list for a few years, why not do it?
Actions can be terrible. Ideas are not terrible.
I find it quite surprising that you're engaging in the sorts of activities that one would find in the Santorum household. "Just WHERE did you get that copy of Darwin, young man?!"
I have to disagree... some ideas are terrible, straight up.
I think it's possible to go far enough out on the fringe that we can locate some books most reasonable people agree are terrible. I'm not talking about a campaign of censorship either... I'm talking about one book.
In my view, the discussion about where the line should be, were it even possible to draw one, is different from one in which one group says in effect "there is no line". All literary works, to me, do not have equal value. Some of them are corrosive enough that I'd happily pick one and conceal it entirely, were that possible to do.
We can agree to disagree about the "terrible idea" issue.
I'm curious. Do you ever worry that by saying, "you are forbidden from reading X" you are increasing the likelihood that your child will seek out X?
Oh, absolutely. In practice, I've only ever drawn a couple of boundaries like this... for example, I set aside Nineteen Eighty-Four until late teenage years, as well as Catcher in the Rye. Neither was bannnnned, but I did tell them "you guys aren't ready for this yet".
In actual parenting we don't do a lot of "you're not allowed", without adding an "until x condition is met" clause. Sometimes that condition is an age, sometimes not. They mostly respect the boundaries because we're not draconian, and since we recognize they're going to push the limits just naturally as kids, we try and move them regularly and be frank about our reasoning, and make sure we're available for discussions rather than being a thing to fear or hide behavior from.
Pretty much the only absolute 100% "oh you're fucked now" lines in the sand are stealing from us, lying and not copping to it when you're busted, and touching the guns without supervision.
I hadn't thought about Catcher in the Rye. That book fucked me up.
Probably the best way to deal with that is, as you said, tell them they have to wait, and then raise them in such a way as to think that Holden Caulfield is a fuckhead.
Though, that'd be a very difficult conversation to have with a child. Telling them that they aren't in a position to understand something yet seems tantamount to the "you'll understand this when you're older" speech, and that hardly ever goes over well.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
That'd be a fun part of having kids.
One of the graduate students who left here a while ago ended up having kids. One time I heard a story about him reading a bedtime story to his daughter. He asked her, "What shall we read tonight? Aristotle or Kant?"
To which the 7 year old replied, "Kant! Kant! Kant!"
Structure and routine do help substantially with ADHD, but only if underlying causes are treated. All the structure in the world doesn't help when you can't sit still. And if you burn out that extra energy through exercise or other activities, you may be able to sit still, but your mind is still going a mile a minute exploring ideas far more interesting than what is currently going on around you.
We all know that it's impossible to screen everything, and that he important thing in general is to create an environment where you can have conversations with your kids and guide them away from terrible ideas before they take root. But if you could take one expression of those terrible ideas and just strike it from the list for a few years, why not do it?
Actions can be terrible. Ideas are not terrible.
I find it quite surprising that you're engaging in the sorts of activities that one would find in the Santorum household. "Just WHERE did you get that copy of Darwin, young man?!"
I have to disagree... some ideas are terrible, straight up.
I think it's possible to go far enough out on the fringe that we can locate some books most reasonable people agree are terrible. I'm not talking about a campaign of censorship either... I'm talking about one book.
In my view, the discussion about where the line should be, were it even possible to draw one, is different from one in which one group says in effect "there is no line". All literary works, to me, do not have equal value. Some of them are corrosive enough that I'd happily pick one and conceal it entirely, were that possible to do.
We can agree to disagree about the "terrible idea" issue.
I'm curious. Do you ever worry that by saying, "you are forbidden from reading X" you are increasing the likelihood that your child will seek out X?
Oh, absolutely. In practice, I've only ever drawn a couple of boundaries like this... for example, I set aside Nineteen Eighty-Four until late teenage years, as well as Catcher in the Rye. Neither was bannnnned, but I did tell them "you guys aren't ready for this yet".
In actual parenting we don't do a lot of "you're not allowed", without adding an "until x condition is met" clause. Sometimes that condition is an age, sometimes not. They mostly respect the boundaries because we're not draconian, and since we recognize they're going to push the limits just naturally as kids, we try and move them regularly and be frank about our reasoning, and make sure we're available for discussions rather than being a thing to fear or hide behavior from.
Pretty much the only absolute 100% "oh you're fucked now" lines in the sand are stealing from us, lying and not copping to it when you're busted, and touching the guns without supervision.
I hadn't thought about Catcher in the Rye. That book fucked me up.
Probably the best way to deal with that is, as you said, tell them they have to wait, and then raise them in such a way as to think that Holden Caulfield is a fuckhead.
Though, that'd be a very difficult conversation to have with a child. Telling them that they aren't in a position to understand something yet seems tantamount to the "you'll understand this when you're older" speech, and that hardly ever goes over well.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
That'd be a fun part of having kids.
One of the graduate students who left here a while ago ended up having kids. One time I heard a story about him reading a bedtime story to his daughter. He asked her, "What shall we read tonight? Aristotle or Kant?"
To which the 7 year old replied, "Kant! Kant! Kant!"
If she even caught a glimpse of a spider-man comic book she would never go back.
We all know that it's impossible to screen everything, and that he important thing in general is to create an environment where you can have conversations with your kids and guide them away from terrible ideas before they take root. But if you could take one expression of those terrible ideas and just strike it from the list for a few years, why not do it?
Actions can be terrible. Ideas are not terrible.
I find it quite surprising that you're engaging in the sorts of activities that one would find in the Santorum household. "Just WHERE did you get that copy of Darwin, young man?!"
I have to disagree... some ideas are terrible, straight up.
I think it's possible to go far enough out on the fringe that we can locate some books most reasonable people agree are terrible. I'm not talking about a campaign of censorship either... I'm talking about one book.
In my view, the discussion about where the line should be, were it even possible to draw one, is different from one in which one group says in effect "there is no line". All literary works, to me, do not have equal value. Some of them are corrosive enough that I'd happily pick one and conceal it entirely, were that possible to do.
We can agree to disagree about the "terrible idea" issue.
I'm curious. Do you ever worry that by saying, "you are forbidden from reading X" you are increasing the likelihood that your child will seek out X?
Oh, absolutely. In practice, I've only ever drawn a couple of boundaries like this... for example, I set aside Nineteen Eighty-Four until late teenage years, as well as Catcher in the Rye. Neither was bannnnned, but I did tell them "you guys aren't ready for this yet".
In actual parenting we don't do a lot of "you're not allowed", without adding an "until x condition is met" clause. Sometimes that condition is an age, sometimes not. They mostly respect the boundaries because we're not draconian, and since we recognize they're going to push the limits just naturally as kids, we try and move them regularly and be frank about our reasoning, and make sure we're available for discussions rather than being a thing to fear or hide behavior from.
Pretty much the only absolute 100% "oh you're fucked now" lines in the sand are stealing from us, lying and not copping to it when you're busted, and touching the guns without supervision.
I hadn't thought about Catcher in the Rye. That book fucked me up.
Probably the best way to deal with that is, as you said, tell them they have to wait, and then raise them in such a way as to think that Holden Caulfield is a fuckhead.
Though, that'd be a very difficult conversation to have with a child. Telling them that they aren't in a position to understand something yet seems tantamount to the "you'll understand this when you're older" speech, and that hardly ever goes over well.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
That'd be a fun part of having kids.
One of the graduate students who left here a while ago ended up having kids. One time I heard a story about him reading a bedtime story to his daughter. He asked her, "What shall we read tonight? Aristotle or Kant?"
To which the 7 year old replied, "Kant! Kant! Kant!"
If she even caught a glimpse of a spider-man comic book she would never go back.
Then again, either choice works great as something to listen to while falling asleep. ;-)
Woo! Work has been crazy today. I basically had to take on my boss and win, and then run with that victory by essentially uniting the nations with my new display of strength. I have subsequently formulated a plan, got a bunch of disparate groups on board with it, and am going to be able to run with it for the next 6 months. I feel strong!
silas you should be able to buy pre-build systems relatively cheaply from a wide range of places
are you in the states?
I am in the states. It sounds like there are a lot of pre-built options I didn't know about. I had previously built my PCs, but I just don't want to bother this time if I can help it.
Paradoxically, I believe ADHD is currently both over and under diagnosed.
It is.
It's overdiagnosed in middle-class/upper-class white kids. (Edit: probably.)
It's underdiagnosed in nonwhite and poor kids. (Edit: probably.)
It pisses me off so much to see five-year-olds on Concerta. No ma'am, just because your boy wants to jump off the roof doesn't mean he has ADHD, it means he's a five year old boy. Plus you have teachers demanding parents to take their kids to the doctor and to not come back until the child is medicated.
Also, what are you smoking that you think ideas can't be terrible? There isn't some massive dualistic divide between having an idea and acting on one. Shitty thought processes, if given priority, do tend to result in shitty actions.
I think you're confusing "idea" and "belief".
"beliefs" are ideas that people act on. Or, if you like, a combination of "idea" and some motivation to act.
But the idea, in itself, does not spur action.
Edit: Or, the "concept" does not spur action.
Edit edit: We can replace "you're confusing" or "i was unclear about the distinction between".
Structure and routine do help substantially with ADHD, but only if underlying causes are treated. All the structure in the world doesn't help when you can't sit still. And if you burn out that extra energy through exercise or other activities, you may be able to sit still, but your mind is still going a mile a minute exploring ideas far more interesting than what is currently going on around you.
Can't you still Sports and Gifted Program that hypothetical kid, and make sure they're not just cooked on cane sugar or caffeine? Would even a multivitamin help?
There must be a solution that doesn't involve Ritalin. There must be.
Woo! Work has been crazy today. I basically had to take on my boss and win, and then run with that victory by essentially uniting the nations with my new display of strength. I have subsequently formulated a plan, got a bunch of disparate groups on board with it, and am going to be able to run with it for the next 6 months. I feel strong!
silas you should be able to buy pre-build systems relatively cheaply from a wide range of places
are you in the states?
I am in the states. It sounds like there are a lot of pre-built options I didn't know about. I had previously built my PCs, but I just don't want to bother this time if I can help it.
The most important thing is you need to decide either:
a) a budget
or
b) a min-spec for the machine
If you don't nail down one of those variables there is no real answer to where to get your PC.
My brother's girlfriend's sister had a baby recently. His most notable observation about it was that when you hold it it's constantly pulling its mouth sideways. There's literally nothing going on in there other then "suck at the source of heat".
We all know that it's impossible to screen everything, and that he important thing in general is to create an environment where you can have conversations with your kids and guide them away from terrible ideas before they take root. But if you could take one expression of those terrible ideas and just strike it from the list for a few years, why not do it?
Actions can be terrible. Ideas are not terrible.
I find it quite surprising that you're engaging in the sorts of activities that one would find in the Santorum household. "Just WHERE did you get that copy of Darwin, young man?!"
I have to disagree... some ideas are terrible, straight up.
I think it's possible to go far enough out on the fringe that we can locate some books most reasonable people agree are terrible. I'm not talking about a campaign of censorship either... I'm talking about one book.
In my view, the discussion about where the line should be, were it even possible to draw one, is different from one in which one group says in effect "there is no line". All literary works, to me, do not have equal value. Some of them are corrosive enough that I'd happily pick one and conceal it entirely, were that possible to do.
We can agree to disagree about the "terrible idea" issue.
I'm curious. Do you ever worry that by saying, "you are forbidden from reading X" you are increasing the likelihood that your child will seek out X?
Oh, absolutely. In practice, I've only ever drawn a couple of boundaries like this... for example, I set aside Nineteen Eighty-Four until late teenage years, as well as Catcher in the Rye. Neither was bannnnned, but I did tell them "you guys aren't ready for this yet".
In actual parenting we don't do a lot of "you're not allowed", without adding an "until x condition is met" clause. Sometimes that condition is an age, sometimes not. They mostly respect the boundaries because we're not draconian, and since we recognize they're going to push the limits just naturally as kids, we try and move them regularly and be frank about our reasoning, and make sure we're available for discussions rather than being a thing to fear or hide behavior from.
Pretty much the only absolute 100% "oh you're fucked now" lines in the sand are stealing from us, lying and not copping to it when you're busted, and touching the guns without supervision.
I hadn't thought about Catcher in the Rye. That book fucked me up.
Probably the best way to deal with that is, as you said, tell them they have to wait, and then raise them in such a way as to think that Holden Caulfield is a fuckhead.
Though, that'd be a very difficult conversation to have with a child. Telling them that they aren't in a position to understand something yet seems tantamount to the "you'll understand this when you're older" speech, and that hardly ever goes over well.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
That'd be a fun part of having kids.
One of the graduate students who left here a while ago ended up having kids. One time I heard a story about him reading a bedtime story to his daughter. He asked her, "What shall we read tonight? Aristotle or Kant?"
To which the 7 year old replied, "Kant! Kant! Kant!"
If she even caught a glimpse of a spider-man comic book she would never go back.
You get kids to eat fruit by not giving them candy.
You get kids to read Kant by not giving them comic books.
We all know that it's impossible to screen everything, and that he important thing in general is to create an environment where you can have conversations with your kids and guide them away from terrible ideas before they take root. But if you could take one expression of those terrible ideas and just strike it from the list for a few years, why not do it?
Actions can be terrible. Ideas are not terrible.
I find it quite surprising that you're engaging in the sorts of activities that one would find in the Santorum household. "Just WHERE did you get that copy of Darwin, young man?!"
I have to disagree... some ideas are terrible, straight up.
I think it's possible to go far enough out on the fringe that we can locate some books most reasonable people agree are terrible. I'm not talking about a campaign of censorship either... I'm talking about one book.
In my view, the discussion about where the line should be, were it even possible to draw one, is different from one in which one group says in effect "there is no line". All literary works, to me, do not have equal value. Some of them are corrosive enough that I'd happily pick one and conceal it entirely, were that possible to do.
We can agree to disagree about the "terrible idea" issue.
I'm curious. Do you ever worry that by saying, "you are forbidden from reading X" you are increasing the likelihood that your child will seek out X?
Oh, absolutely. In practice, I've only ever drawn a couple of boundaries like this... for example, I set aside Nineteen Eighty-Four until late teenage years, as well as Catcher in the Rye. Neither was bannnnned, but I did tell them "you guys aren't ready for this yet".
In actual parenting we don't do a lot of "you're not allowed", without adding an "until x condition is met" clause. Sometimes that condition is an age, sometimes not. They mostly respect the boundaries because we're not draconian, and since we recognize they're going to push the limits just naturally as kids, we try and move them regularly and be frank about our reasoning, and make sure we're available for discussions rather than being a thing to fear or hide behavior from.
Pretty much the only absolute 100% "oh you're fucked now" lines in the sand are stealing from us, lying and not copping to it when you're busted, and touching the guns without supervision.
I hadn't thought about Catcher in the Rye. That book fucked me up.
Probably the best way to deal with that is, as you said, tell them they have to wait, and then raise them in such a way as to think that Holden Caulfield is a fuckhead.
Though, that'd be a very difficult conversation to have with a child. Telling them that they aren't in a position to understand something yet seems tantamount to the "you'll understand this when you're older" speech, and that hardly ever goes over well.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
That'd be a fun part of having kids.
One of the graduate students who left here a while ago ended up having kids. One time I heard a story about him reading a bedtime story to his daughter. He asked her, "What shall we read tonight? Aristotle or Kant?"
To which the 7 year old replied, "Kant! Kant! Kant!"
If she even caught a glimpse of a spider-man comic book she would never go back.
You get kids to eat fruit by not giving them candy.
You get kids to read Kant by not giving them comic books.
And during their rebellious teenage years they become toothless diabetics whoring themselves out at the local comic book shop.
Gotta plan ahead! Push the candy and comics early so when they rebel they turn into super healthy chemical engineers.
humans are pretty crazy in just how underdeveloped they are at birth
It's pretty crazy how long it takes for a human to develop to the point where if you put them in a room - with everything they need to live just a few feet away - they won't die.
We all know that it's impossible to screen everything, and that he important thing in general is to create an environment where you can have conversations with your kids and guide them away from terrible ideas before they take root. But if you could take one expression of those terrible ideas and just strike it from the list for a few years, why not do it?
Actions can be terrible. Ideas are not terrible.
I find it quite surprising that you're engaging in the sorts of activities that one would find in the Santorum household. "Just WHERE did you get that copy of Darwin, young man?!"
I have to disagree... some ideas are terrible, straight up.
I think it's possible to go far enough out on the fringe that we can locate some books most reasonable people agree are terrible. I'm not talking about a campaign of censorship either... I'm talking about one book.
In my view, the discussion about where the line should be, were it even possible to draw one, is different from one in which one group says in effect "there is no line". All literary works, to me, do not have equal value. Some of them are corrosive enough that I'd happily pick one and conceal it entirely, were that possible to do.
We can agree to disagree about the "terrible idea" issue.
I'm curious. Do you ever worry that by saying, "you are forbidden from reading X" you are increasing the likelihood that your child will seek out X?
Oh, absolutely. In practice, I've only ever drawn a couple of boundaries like this... for example, I set aside Nineteen Eighty-Four until late teenage years, as well as Catcher in the Rye. Neither was bannnnned, but I did tell them "you guys aren't ready for this yet".
In actual parenting we don't do a lot of "you're not allowed", without adding an "until x condition is met" clause. Sometimes that condition is an age, sometimes not. They mostly respect the boundaries because we're not draconian, and since we recognize they're going to push the limits just naturally as kids, we try and move them regularly and be frank about our reasoning, and make sure we're available for discussions rather than being a thing to fear or hide behavior from.
Pretty much the only absolute 100% "oh you're fucked now" lines in the sand are stealing from us, lying and not copping to it when you're busted, and touching the guns without supervision.
I hadn't thought about Catcher in the Rye. That book fucked me up.
Probably the best way to deal with that is, as you said, tell them they have to wait, and then raise them in such a way as to think that Holden Caulfield is a fuckhead.
Though, that'd be a very difficult conversation to have with a child. Telling them that they aren't in a position to understand something yet seems tantamount to the "you'll understand this when you're older" speech, and that hardly ever goes over well.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
That'd be a fun part of having kids.
One of the graduate students who left here a while ago ended up having kids. One time I heard a story about him reading a bedtime story to his daughter. He asked her, "What shall we read tonight? Aristotle or Kant?"
To which the 7 year old replied, "Kant! Kant! Kant!"
If she even caught a glimpse of a spider-man comic book she would never go back.
You get kids to eat fruit by not giving them candy.
You get kids to read Kant by not giving them comic books.
Structure and routine do help substantially with ADHD, but only if underlying causes are treated. All the structure in the world doesn't help when you can't sit still. And if you burn out that extra energy through exercise or other activities, you may be able to sit still, but your mind is still going a mile a minute exploring ideas far more interesting than what is currently going on around you.
Can't you still Sports and Gifted Program that hypothetical kid, and make sure they're not just cooked on cane sugar or caffeine? Would even a multivitamin help?
There must be a solution that doesn't involve Ritalin. There must be.
Unfortunately we're talking about brain chemistry and function. It's kind of like saying a person with clinical depression should try and watch happy movies all the time before they try an antidepressant.
We all know that it's impossible to screen everything, and that he important thing in general is to create an environment where you can have conversations with your kids and guide them away from terrible ideas before they take root. But if you could take one expression of those terrible ideas and just strike it from the list for a few years, why not do it?
Actions can be terrible. Ideas are not terrible.
I find it quite surprising that you're engaging in the sorts of activities that one would find in the Santorum household. "Just WHERE did you get that copy of Darwin, young man?!"
I have to disagree... some ideas are terrible, straight up.
I think it's possible to go far enough out on the fringe that we can locate some books most reasonable people agree are terrible. I'm not talking about a campaign of censorship either... I'm talking about one book.
In my view, the discussion about where the line should be, were it even possible to draw one, is different from one in which one group says in effect "there is no line". All literary works, to me, do not have equal value. Some of them are corrosive enough that I'd happily pick one and conceal it entirely, were that possible to do.
We can agree to disagree about the "terrible idea" issue.
I'm curious. Do you ever worry that by saying, "you are forbidden from reading X" you are increasing the likelihood that your child will seek out X?
Oh, absolutely. In practice, I've only ever drawn a couple of boundaries like this... for example, I set aside Nineteen Eighty-Four until late teenage years, as well as Catcher in the Rye. Neither was bannnnned, but I did tell them "you guys aren't ready for this yet".
In actual parenting we don't do a lot of "you're not allowed", without adding an "until x condition is met" clause. Sometimes that condition is an age, sometimes not. They mostly respect the boundaries because we're not draconian, and since we recognize they're going to push the limits just naturally as kids, we try and move them regularly and be frank about our reasoning, and make sure we're available for discussions rather than being a thing to fear or hide behavior from.
Pretty much the only absolute 100% "oh you're fucked now" lines in the sand are stealing from us, lying and not copping to it when you're busted, and touching the guns without supervision.
I hadn't thought about Catcher in the Rye. That book fucked me up.
Probably the best way to deal with that is, as you said, tell them they have to wait, and then raise them in such a way as to think that Holden Caulfield is a fuckhead.
Though, that'd be a very difficult conversation to have with a child. Telling them that they aren't in a position to understand something yet seems tantamount to the "you'll understand this when you're older" speech, and that hardly ever goes over well.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
That'd be a fun part of having kids.
One of the graduate students who left here a while ago ended up having kids. One time I heard a story about him reading a bedtime story to his daughter. He asked her, "What shall we read tonight? Aristotle or Kant?"
To which the 7 year old replied, "Kant! Kant! Kant!"
If she even caught a glimpse of a spider-man comic book she would never go back.
You get kids to eat fruit by not giving them candy.
You get kids to read Kant by not giving them comic books.
And during their rebellious teenage years they become toothless diabetics whoring themselves out at the local comic book shop.
Gotta plan ahead! Push the candy and comics early so when they rebel they turn into super healthy chemical engineers.
Trying to plan for how a child shall rebel would be one of the bad parts of having kids.
Structure and routine do help substantially with ADHD, but only if underlying causes are treated. All the structure in the world doesn't help when you can't sit still. And if you burn out that extra energy through exercise or other activities, you may be able to sit still, but your mind is still going a mile a minute exploring ideas far more interesting than what is currently going on around you.
Can't you still Sports and Gifted Program that hypothetical kid, and make sure they're not just cooked on cane sugar or caffeine? Would even a multivitamin help?
There must be a solution that doesn't involve Ritalin. There must be.
Unfortunately we're talking about brain chemistry and function. It's kind of like saying a person with clinical depression should try and watch happy movies all the time before they try an antidepressant.
Exercise can have a huge impact on clinical depression.
In my own experience, it was easier for a teacher (and by extension my school district) to ignore me instead of attempting to engage me. There was one teacher who had the right idea and let me work on my own pace in math, however it kind of bit them in the rear when I had finished the year's curriculum in two months and now had nothing to do for the rest of the year.
Posts
I didn't admit them.
Of course a lot of kids who weren't in the accelerated class are doing the same thing. Not so much because my school is full of smart folks but because it is an upper middle class white suburban area where most of the kids are able to go to college without taking out loans and have access to a lot of things many people in the US do not.
So uhh yay for being the upper middle class?
this is true for my school too.
so. . .what is your sig/av
Basically english muffin instead of bread, and some cheese.
It works better if you have a history of proactively coming to the kids with some thing and saying "hey, check this out... I think you're old enough now".
Did this with Pulp Fiction and the 16yr old daughter last month. Mind. Blown.
If that authority figure saying that sucks, it was. This is a pretty controversial issue re: overdiagnoses and medical treatment of behavioral disorders that may or not actually be A Thing with the kid in question.
The actual old-timey answer to ADHD was to have the kid go out for sports or to have them cultivate a hobby or two, since they had all this boundless energy and these focus issues. Maybe it even worked! Or maybe it didn't.
We're going to Sports this thing out of you! Which I suppose is a way of surreptitiously adding structure anyway without making the kid feel bad.
First thought: What's the difference between a high school dropout and a communications major?
A couple of them dropped out of college. I think the others completed college and then found tedious jobs and joined the John Birch Society.
I guess i'm conceiving of "failure" as "mindlessly replicating their parent's life path."
Paradoxically, I believe ADHD is currently both over and under diagnosed.
Henry Kissinger. The sig is Henry Kissinger and Zhou Enlai drinking during Nixon's trip to China.
It is.
It's overdiagnosed in middle-class/upper-class white kids. (Edit: probably.)
It's underdiagnosed in nonwhite and poor kids. (Edit: probably.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Also, what are you smoking that you think ideas can't be terrible? There isn't some massive dualistic divide between having an idea and acting on one. Shitty thought processes, if given priority, do tend to result in shitty actions.
That'd be a fun part of having kids.
One of the graduate students who left here a while ago ended up having kids. One time I heard a story about him reading a bedtime story to his daughter. He asked her, "What shall we read tonight? Aristotle or Kant?"
To which the 7 year old replied, "Kant! Kant! Kant!"
If she even caught a glimpse of a spider-man comic book she would never go back.
Then again, either choice works great as something to listen to while falling asleep. ;-)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So yeah, I'm late with this response. Sorry!
I am in the states. It sounds like there are a lot of pre-built options I didn't know about. I had previously built my PCs, but I just don't want to bother this time if I can help it.
It pisses me off so much to see five-year-olds on Concerta. No ma'am, just because your boy wants to jump off the roof doesn't mean he has ADHD, it means he's a five year old boy. Plus you have teachers demanding parents to take their kids to the doctor and to not come back until the child is medicated.
I think you're confusing "idea" and "belief".
"beliefs" are ideas that people act on. Or, if you like, a combination of "idea" and some motivation to act.
But the idea, in itself, does not spur action.
Edit: Or, the "concept" does not spur action.
Edit edit: We can replace "you're confusing" or "i was unclear about the distinction between".
Can't you still Sports and Gifted Program that hypothetical kid, and make sure they're not just cooked on cane sugar or caffeine? Would even a multivitamin help?
There must be a solution that doesn't involve Ritalin. There must be.
The most important thing is you need to decide either:
a) a budget
or
b) a min-spec for the machine
If you don't nail down one of those variables there is no real answer to where to get your PC.
You get kids to eat fruit by not giving them candy.
You get kids to read Kant by not giving them comic books.
And during their rebellious teenage years they become toothless diabetics whoring themselves out at the local comic book shop.
Gotta plan ahead! Push the candy and comics early so when they rebel they turn into super healthy chemical engineers.
Why must there be?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's pretty crazy how long it takes for a human to develop to the point where if you put them in a room - with everything they need to live just a few feet away - they won't die.
hehehehehehe. This is pure _J_
Unfortunately we're talking about brain chemistry and function. It's kind of like saying a person with clinical depression should try and watch happy movies all the time before they try an antidepressant.
Trying to plan for how a child shall rebel would be one of the bad parts of having kids.
Because putting children on speed and powerful pharmaceuticals should be a last resort rather than a first option?
Exercise can have a huge impact on clinical depression.
Sew weights into their clothes to sap their energy.
The downside is they will become very strong and probably wreck face when angered.
Slacking off to counteract my productive morning.
Mind over food.