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

101–110 of 433 posts

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#101

Post by nonrecursive »

greendestiny wrote: post #66
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 know that I've ever read a really good account of the hows and whys of swearing. It seems to me the idea that we're mistaken that swear words are taboo completely misses the fact that we defined these words as taboo to start with. I think restricting children from swearing is in part to give more power to swear words, because as adults we find it useful to have these powerful words. Teaching children that swe…

check out Steven Pinker's "Why We Curse", http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=246c0071-a9cd-46e2...

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#102

Post by j2d2 »

When I was younger my Dad used to tell me roadkill was just sleeping. I remember accepting this for a while. One day, my Mom was driving behind someone who ran over a cat. The cat thrashed around in the road for a long time until it finally laid down, breathing very hard. My Mom told me to stay in the car and told me explicitly "you don't want to see what this cat goes through right now." I sat and contemplated what the cat must be going through and came to a point where I felt I understood it. The next year, when my neighbor killed herself, I was able to accept her passing with much more ease. IMO a gradual path to accepting death worked out well for me.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#103

Post by r7000 »

edw519 wrote: post #65

Einstein, like many people, felt differently about religion at different times in his life, throughout which he maintained his Jewish identity. Young Einstein's observation about religion cited in the article should probably be balanced by older Einstein's insight, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Or his written views as in this article I was reading this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscienc...

The essay's quote was used to help describe an experience many people go through, probably better than Paul could himself, and therefore was very appropriately chosen. Why would there have to be an artificial caveat? Later quotes would not be relevant to the time of life the essay was discussing.

Absolutely, he maintained his Jewish identity - the payload of beneficial cultural values - but he consistently rejected the religious practices (non-payload portions) - up until his choice of what type of funeral to have.

Here is a good quote from the article that recognizes the balance however:

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#104

Post by llimllib »

bcater wrote: post #83

"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…

Also, that passage made me think that he was repeating the common (probable) falsehood that lactic acid is what causes the soreness and tiredness of muscles following anaerobic exercise. Recent research suggests that it is in fact a source of energy for the body, and slows down acidosis: http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/3/R50...

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#105

Post by pchristensen »

sofal wrote: post #90
shawndrost wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

Don't worry sofal, you're not alone. No matter how rational the scientific view of the world is, there is nothing in it that precludes the existence of a Higher Being that made it that way!

Also, whether you view the fundamental moral principles as divinely given or the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of society, they are critical for children to have.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#106

Post by llimllib »

sanj wrote: post #98
llimllib wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

By that argument, all OBGYNs should be men. Or women who've not been pregnant.

negative, ghostrider. Suggesting that a male obgyn may have a different and valuable perspective from a female obgyn is not the same as suggesting that all OBGYNs should be men.

To be explicit, I don't claim that all articles about parenthood should be written by non-parents, just that there's a particular type of value in ones that are, since they may more successfully divorce themselves from the visceral feelings of attachment that parents have towards their children.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#107

Post by muerdeme »

pg wrote: post #32
epi0Bauqu wrote: post #5

PG: what does suburbia mean to you? You paint it in an extremely negative light, and so I'd just like some more detail of how you define that term. I know it means different things to different people.

I mean post-war neighborhoods of tract houses build on spec by developers. I don't mean places that are merely geographically suburban, in the sense that they're less densely settled areas on the perimeters of cities. (In the US, practically all the less densely settled area on the perimeters of cities are neighborhoods built by developers, but in Europe there are older cities where this isn't true.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONEYGU_7EqU

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#108

Post by pchristensen »

brlewis wrote: post #16
mynameishere wrote: post #9

Most lies are of a statistical nature. Moving to the suburbs is a good example. You're seeing lots of true things that aren't statistically representative. The extensive coverage of protected groups in history texts is the same way. Look at some different lies: 1. "Grandma went to heaven." False. 2. "God doesn't kill good people." False, but containing a moral lesson. 3. "Your parents won't die." False, but translate…

"Grandma went to heaven" is not falsifiable. I'd prefer keeping this discussion focused on falsifiable lies. Let those of us who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the coming of the semantic web, or other supernatural phenomena believe what we want to believe.

"Let those of us who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the coming of the semantic web, or other supernatural phenomena believe what we want to believe."

Bruce, you can't stay stuff like that while I'm at work - I've got people around me who can hear me laughing!

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#109

Post by jamess »

astine wrote: post #68
jamess wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 personally know quite a few people who are offended by foul language. What constitutes foul language may be cultural but that's beside the issue. Imagine, a child from 1950s American suburbs was raised in that belief that certain words were wrong to use. The child was consistently reinforced in this belief throughout his childhood by all adults he met but never had it explained to him. Later, as an adult, he finds…

Keeping a taboo when the underlying reason for it has gone away tends to be detrimental for society. I saw a wonderful documentary recently called "Born rich" (I highly recommend it, amongst other things from it I finally learned why there are a number of US personalities whose educational background seems so at odds with their outward demeanour. It's that the privileged simply can't get chucked out of a University, no matter how poorly they perform.) in which one of the interviewees was worrying about whether it was OK to have taken a group of her Jewish friends to lunch at her club, and speculating that it certainly would have been frowned upon had they been black.

I've no idea whether this taboo she transgressed is real or not. I'd certainly suggest it shouldn't be, it's the kind of prejudice you giggle at when you read it in the popular literature of the 30s and 40s. However, if it isn't real, the mere concern over it in the mind of the members keeps them from expanding their cultural horizons. It has become a permanently inhibiting fear, without any real referent.

In short, if you suspect a taboo is no longer culturally relevant you should probably consider yourself to have a duty to break it to get it out of the way as quickly as possible.

Re: Lies We Tell Kids

#110

Post by geebee »

epi0Bauqu wrote: post #5

PG: what does suburbia mean to you? You paint it in an extremely negative light, and so I'd just like some more detail of how you define that term. I know it means different things to different people.

I grew up in SF in what a lot of people call "residential neighborhoods" rather than "suburbs". There are houses, with small yards, and sometimes the houses don't even border each other. It's very different from palo alto (which is generally regarded as a suburb), and utterly different from, say antioch (whis is part of what people often call the exurbs).

You do, as a kid, see a lot that needs explaining. Some days, as we drove home from school, my brother saw a long line of men lining up outside the "nob hill male". They must, he concluded, be the dancers rather than the audience. Snort.

I actually think that cities are a pretty good place for kids to grow up, largely because it cushions the impact of growing out of the lies PG has mentioned. At age 15 in SF, I found a release in coffee shops in the haight, north beach, and the mission - and I could easily get to them without a car. Sure, I did plenty of the things that parents worry about, but in the end, there were interesting and exciting ways to get away from childhood that involved expanding my mind rather than looking for trouble. When I look at the ennui of the kids growing up in the exurbs, sometimes I think that maybe the lure of drunk street racing is greater, because there's less to do.

Post reply on HN