Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lies We Tell Kids

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 433 posts

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#81

Post by menloparkbum »

Xichekolas wrote: post #28
brlewis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "sprawl" might be a more descriptive term for what you're reacting negatively to. Boston has lots of suburbs that don't fit your description. (BTW, suburb's etymology is not tree-related.)

Yeah to me suburb means tract housing. Does Boston have suburbs that aren't tract housing? (I said tree related because every suburban neighborhood I can think of has a tree related name... "Willow Springs" "Lone Elm Estates" "Pine Ridge" etc.)

Yes - most of the "suburbs" in Boston are smaller towns that have grown and run into each other.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#82

Post by zach »

This is the first PG article I've felt a certain way about, which is that its scope exceeded my interest. I may yet read the rest of it soon. But fundamentally, I must point this out:

> By 15 I was convinced the world was corrupt from end to end. That's why movies like The Matrix have such resonance. Every kid grows up in a fake world.

Or the classic example, The Catcher in the Rye. Adolescents are caught between a desire for authentic reality and romantic idealism. They profess to want the former but seek the latter.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#83

Post by bcater »

"A sprinter in a race almost immediately enters a state called 'oxygen debt.' His body switches to an emergency source of energy that's faster than regular aerobic respiration. But this process builds up waste products that ultimately require extra oxygen to break down, so at the end of the race he has to stop and pant for a while to recover."

As a point of information, it's unusual to think of anaerobic respiration as an emergency source of energy; you tend to think of emergency situations as necessarily involving adrenaline, which increases heart rate, dilates blood vessels, etc. The biggest energy source of the 100m and 200m sprints is phosphocreatine, a very useful fuel for anaerobic metabolism; unfortunately for sprinters, it can be depleted in under ten seconds of top physical effort. (Incidentally, A.V. Hill received the 1922 Nobel Prize in Physiology for figuring out the proportions of aerobic and anaerobic metabolism that contribute to energy production in the various distances of Olympic footraces.)

This, of course, is all to say that sometimes lies aren't really malicious - as he says - but that it's simply easier to say simple things than complex things. Since it was tangential to the discussion anyway, it's no big deal.

And if you disagree (as many experts do, even amongst each other) about the role of phosphocreatine, I'll be perfectly content with you calling me a liar :)

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#84

Post by jkkramer »

jamess wrote: post #75
jkkramer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cite? I've never seen any evidence that kids need animal protein to develop. I was raised vegetarian from birth and have no mental or physical defects to speak of. I have siblings and cousins and friends that are the same. Vitamin B12 is the only thing that can be a challenge to get from non-animal sources, but that's only a concern if you're vegan. The whole "vegetarians don't get enough protein" thing is an overblo…

Yes, that's the thing. There's literally millions of people in Africa who get little or no animal protein, and they grow up just fine. The point is that study after study shows that with just a tiny portion of animal protein, they end up a whole lot smarter. I'm not trying to suggest you aren't yourself a smart person, just that simply because you can't see the ill effects your actions cause doesn't mean they don't e…

Your use of "vegetarian" and "animal protein" are unconventional. "Vegetarian" generally refers to someone that does not eat meat but does eat eggs and dairy, so when you said "vegetarian kids need animal protein", it implies they need meat. But meat is not essential for development; B12 is, and can be got from milk or eggs.

It's true anyone raising their child vegan ought to be aware of B12 deficiency. Time was when B12 could be got from dirt on vegetables pulled from the ground, but nowadays we're pretty finicky about cleanliness.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#85

Post by Retric »

jamess wrote: post #57
astine wrote: post #22

Does it count as a 'lie' if it is believed by the parent? The reason that parents don't want kids to swear is because they genuinely believe that it is wrong for some reason. The don't know the reason themselves, and so break the rule and become hypocrites, but they still believe that it is wrong and want their children to do better than they did. With regard to group identity (and religion,) most parents actually ad…

I don't think this is true. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone under the age of 40 (that is, approximately of breeding age) who is genuinely offended by most words that are designated taboo. Any offence that is publicly displayed is most likely a put-on to illustrate they are more cultured that the offender. What's worse is that it's entirely subjective what words a culture counts as taboo. I've seen US TV…

I there are plenty of taboo words, but they have changed over time. 50 years ago people had no problem saying extremely racist or sexist things in the open but now it's a new taboo. IMO taboo words relate to taboo thoughts.

The odd things is the FCC is not what's keeping really taboo words off the air but they still keep the old guard of psudo taboo words off of prime time.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#86

Post by danohuiginn »

robg wrote: post #79
danohuiginn wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have these kinds of discussion fairly often. In fact, I probably wouldn't consider somebody a friend until we'd had that kind of conversation. I find it hard to judge if that's unusual - maybe it is in other social circles? I take the point that avoiding self-deception is hard, maybe impossible. But that's no different from talking about science, or history, or just about anything else.

That self-deception is exactly what I was getting at. I have no doubt that many have these discussions but it's so much easier to lie during them. I'd argue it's different in kind from science or history exactly because there's no independent record that can be consulted. Indeed, I can't see many parents lying to their kids about science or history because it would be so straight-forward to identify the lie. No, the…

ah, in that case I do agree - and we're talking about something that huge swathes of philosophers, psychologists, social scientists and miscellaneous intellectuals have spent their lives arguing about.

That isn't to deny that a pg contribution could be illuminating!

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#87

Post by 9oliYQjP »

There's an interesting thing to note about sex amongst youth in rural, suburban, and urban settings. I've been privy to statistics held by birth control manufacturers (although the exact numbers evade my memory, the relations I remember). These show that urban youths begin having sex at an average age of 15. Suburban youths begin having sex at an average age of 14. Rural youths begin having sex at an average age of 13.

So, moving out to the suburbs might seem like protecting your child from having sex at an early age but the statistics would indicate otherwise.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#88

Post by huherto »

sofal wrote: post #8

Am I the only one here who disagrees almost completely with everything that is said? I don't mean to be disrespectful or offensive here. I'm just trying to get a feel for whether or not I'm the outcast in this corner of the Web.

I just noticed that I was very critical when I was reading the essay. Almost like having a higher standard for Paul's essays. I mostly agree with him, but I was trying to find holes in every sentence. I am not usually that critical. edit:syntax error

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#89

Post by llimllib »

sanj wrote: post #58
byrneseyeview wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think his lack of kids would bias him when observing parents? Isn't this more or less the opposite of what courts argue -- that e.g. a judge who owns Microsoft stock should not be ruling on a Microsoft antitrust case, even if he is the only one who really knows what it would feel like for the shareholders were they walloped with a giant fine?

That's a very interesting point! But it seems like you'd want a judge who had at least been a stockholder, though not one in this particular company. Would either side consider a judge that stored his life savings in his mattress and disagreed with the right of corporations to be valid? The different (and I'll admit I'm on thin ice here) is that kids have a visceral component that is difficult to ignore. If I drop a…

> The different (and I'll admit I'm on thin ice here) is that kids have a visceral component that is difficult to ignore.

Exactly - and thus there is value in having a neutral(ish) observer of the parenting process.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#90

Post by sofal »

shawndrost wrote: post #45
sofal wrote: post #8

Am I the only one here who disagrees almost completely with everything that is said? I don't mean to be disrespectful or offensive here. I'm just trying to get a feel for whether or not I'm the outcast in this corner of the Web.

What do you disagree with, and why? Dissent is fun to read about.

I sense that some of the disagreements that I have with Paul Graham are deeply fundamental and have to do with the fabric and meaning of our existence. First of all, I'm a religious person. This I have seen immediately qualifies me for ridicule from some on a forum such as this, as believing in God is seen as the logical equivalent to believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If you think I am totally deluded because of my beliefs, I would ask that you at least show respect for the fact that I am devoted to them and value them sincerely.

I'll pick one thing for now. In the part about sex and drugs, Paul mentions that parents' desires for instilling confidence in their children conflict with their desires to teach children that they shouldn't trust their own judgment.

Teaching a child to avoid doing the wrong or evil thing does not have to be a matter of making the child submit to the parents' will. If a parent teaches a child correct principles (and yes I believe that there are fundamentally correct and incorrect principles), than the child can understand these not only logically, but morally (or spiritually, whatever you prefer). A child can and will be tempted to dabble in things like illicit sex and drugs. However, if that child has been properly taught, then he or she will know that those temptations go against the child's better judgment. There are two forces at work in a child's mind here. One is the natural desire to take the easy way and receive the certain immediate pleasure, the other is the desire to be wiser and live by a higher standard. A parent can instill confidence in a child by showing them that they trust the child to make the right choices. If a child makes a wrong choice, it is not because they used their own judgment instead of their parents', it is because they failed to use their own judgment. They can often feel that they have betrayed the trust that was given them.

Many of you may dismiss this as sentimental hogwash or religious tripe. You may say that this judgment that I describe a child learning from his or her parents comes about through brainwashing and lies. I only ask you to keep an open mind and consider my point of view carefully. Many others share it, though maybe not here.

Post reply on HN