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

This is a teenager

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 868 posts

Re: This is a teenager

#801

Post by RestlessMind »

bccdee wrote: post #792
thegrimmest wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree with utilitarian interventionism. It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. Economic and social outcomes are not universal moral values. The collective has no right to impose their utilitarian best-guess on the individual. People should have a right to reject them and raise illiter…

> It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. If that's "core liberal fundamentals," then maybe liberalism is, at heart, rotten. Your take on it certainly is. I don't respect a parent's "right" to neglect or mistreat their children. Society collectively is entitled (in fact, obliged) to intervene…

> How can you possibly believe that the government, with its myriad checks and balances, is too susceptible to corruption to intervene in family life, but that parents, whose power over their children should be absolutely unchecked in your view, cannot be corrupt?

Because generally parents care a lot about their children. That has been a universal experience. There are of course some rotten outliers, but those are the exceptions which prove the rule.

Whereas governments are mostly comprised of faceless bureaucrats who will generally care far less about a child. Again, there will be some great exceptions of government employees who are truly fantastic, but the general perception I have described still holds.

That you cannot see this obvious fact means

> This is a ridiculous and half-baked ideology.

these words seem to describe your ideology. And you may not believe me, but just look at referendums or bills about parental rights and public's reaction to those. Even in a one-party state like California with progressive zealots in power, governor Newsom figured it is wiser to veto bills which encroach on a parent's rights.

Re: This is a teenager

#802

Post by antisthenes »

nvy wrote: post #562
antisthenes wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I just pointed out that your absolutist statements look ridiculous.

So just to be clear: you think "it is very likely" or "he might" are absolutist statements? Is that what you're saying?

No. Look at what I quoted originally.

Re: This is a teenager

#803

Post by sabarn01 »

chefandy wrote: post #695
sabarn01 wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both cases the point is benefit the system at the expense of the child with the issues. One kid should not be allowed to ruin a class. My kids school has emotionally disturbed kids in the classroom making it impossible to have regular lessons. When I was kid we had people that brought guns to school and were kicked out it seemed reasonable to me. I also think alternate school is a reasonable answer for kids who ar…

> One kid should not be allowed to ruin a class. The only thing I ruined for other students when I was in class was forcing them to look at my stupid haircut. My punishments were for truancy. I went to school, but spent all of my time in the computer lab because with severe ADHD without any academic support rendered class pointless. One crusty old Korean War vet teacher flat-out told me he "didn't believe in IEPs," a…

We are talking past each other. Kids that need help should get help. One form of that help is holding kids back so that they get a second chance to master material they need for the next year. If you progress kids that are not ready you burden the teacher the next year as they have to provide more differentiated instruction. We should reduce the stigma of holding kids back by doing more regularly. Its cheaper than the wide array of tier 1 and 2 interventions.

Kids that have violence/social issue should be removed from kids that are ready to be in school. I know teacher who have kids who have been disruptive and they can not discipline them. Suspensions/ Alternative / Expulsions should be used when appropriate for the benefit of everyone else.

I don't know if you have kids, but mine are in a very liberal school in a very rich area. Very unlike where I grew up, and they cannot run an elementary school. Both my kids are Add/Dyslexic. My wife observed a class and the teacher had no ability to create a calm learning environment. There were emotionally disturbed kids in the same class who screamed / ran out of the room. 2x this year my son was asked to go fetch a kid who ran from the room because the kid that ran likes my son. We had a 504 plan which could not be implemented because there is no bandwidth.

We need to look at how we teach kids fundamentally because what we have been doing for the last 30 years hasn't worked.

Re: This is a teenager

#804

Post by sabarn01 »

chefandy wrote: post #643
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real data on holding kids back is actively harmful. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03055698.2014.93... The same holds for suspensions. https://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Noltemeyer_W...

As someone subjected to both of these actions, plus expulsion, in lieu of anybody bothering to try and figure out what was wrong, that certainly rings true. However, people just really really love a) nostalgia, b) validating their compulsion to inflict the same pain they experienced as children on young people, and c) watching people in out-groups get punished. It's a lovely thought, but I'll believe that there have…

If you have a kid that is fighting other kids/teachers what is the school supposed to do.

Re: This is a teenager

#805

Post by thegrimmest »

bccdee wrote: post #792
thegrimmest wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree with utilitarian interventionism. It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. Economic and social outcomes are not universal moral values. The collective has no right to impose their utilitarian best-guess on the individual. People should have a right to reject them and raise illiter…

> It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. If that's "core liberal fundamentals," then maybe liberalism is, at heart, rotten. Your take on it certainly is. I don't respect a parent's "right" to neglect or mistreat their children. Society collectively is entitled (in fact, obliged) to intervene…

Liberalism as an ideology can be derived from two axioms:

1) All people are moral equals

2) There is no moral oracle

It follows from these that no person has a source of moral authority to impose their views on another. What gives you or anyone else the moral right to intervene in someone else's family, presumably by force, over their objections? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm earnestly hoping for a clear answer.

Liberalism is the ideology responsible for our prosperity. Liberal literature is also pretty clear about what it is:

> Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

Centralized authority, no matter how well-meaning, has failed at every turn. Raising hateful, illiterate children injures no one else. More fundamentally, I think it's critical to separate your personal moral compass from a moral framework you are comfortable using force to impose on other people. The first step on the path to evil is thinking you know better.

Re: This is a teenager

#806

Post by willmadden »

cameldrv wrote: post #364

The punchline is this: "It's 2021. The research participants are in their late-30s now, which means they've had plenty of time to shape their own destinies. But we can clearly see that the experiences of their childhood had a huge effect on their financial situation as adults. It also has an effect on virtually everything else in their lives." You cannot infer the direction of causality from this data, i.e. that the…

Everyone wants to assume causation from correlation.

I would posit that it’s a cumulative effect from many generations and mostly heritable.

Re: This is a teenager

#807

Post by naasking »

thfuran wrote: post #798
naasking wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are, but putting the locus of control on external factors disempowers people. "These people didn't do as well as they could have due to poor impulse control" is a better explanation/reason than "these people have poor impulse control because of the environment in which they were raised"; the environment is not the cause of the poor outcomes, the poor impulse control is the cause, and pointing out the c…

>the environment is not the cause of the poor outcomes It's not the proximate cause, but that doesn't mean it is in no way causative. >and pointing out the cause shows a path to correcting the issue Yes, it can often be most efficient to address root causes.

Yes, it's causative in the same sense that the formation of our solar system eventually caused me to write this reply.

And I agree that it's typically most efficient to address root causes, but there's a sleight of hand going on here. Note how your post correctly pointed out that environment influences a person's actions where I said poor impulse control causes poor outcomes. There are causal factors in both cases, but clearly there is a clear and direct causal link in the latter and a diffuse set of uncertain possible causes in the former.

I would not call environment a root cause in this case unless you can actually narrow down the specific source that causes poor impulse control (some of it is genetic and thus ineliminable).

Re: This is a teenager

#808

Post by benjovi »

RestlessMind wrote: post #801
bccdee wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It violates core liberal fundamentals. People have the right to be as involved of parents as they see fit, and to raise their children with values of their choosing. If that's "core liberal fundamentals," then maybe liberalism is, at heart, rotten. Your take on it certainly is. I don't respect a parent's "right" to neglect or mistreat their children. Society collectively is entitled (in fact, obliged) to intervene…

> How can you possibly believe that the government, with its myriad checks and balances, is too susceptible to corruption to intervene in family life, but that parents, whose power over their children should be absolutely unchecked in your view, cannot be corrupt? Because generally parents care a lot about their children. That has been a universal experience. There are of course some rotten outliers, but those are th…

>generally parents care a lot about their children. That has been a universal experience. There are of course some rotten outliers, but those are the exceptions which prove the rule.

I have personally seen parents care *so much* for their children that they don't see their abusive behavior. The "most caring" parents can turn out to be absolute monsters to their children, and think they're doing the right thing.

Re: This is a teenager

#809

Post by ckemere »

Lots of discussion about the conclusions relating childhood trauma to adult outcomes. One intermediate comment that struck me was the idea of college as a temporal/physical space for necessary growth in the 18-20s age range. I need to ponder more about this.

BUT, it struck me that one of the outcomes of the pandemic was the recognition that a major function of school for kids is childcare (as opposed to learning), and it’s funny to imagine college as the modern equivalent for older “kids”.

Re: This is a teenager

#810

Post by chefandy »

sabarn01 wrote: post #804
chefandy wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone subjected to both of these actions, plus expulsion, in lieu of anybody bothering to try and figure out what was wrong, that certainly rings true. However, people just really really love a) nostalgia, b) validating their compulsion to inflict the same pain they experienced as children on young people, and c) watching people in out-groups get punished. It's a lovely thought, but I'll believe that there have…

If you have a kid that is fighting other kids/teachers what is the school supposed to do.

A) Suspension is a great way to pretend you're addressing a problem while sweeping it under the rug. If the administrators aren't willing to mediate conflict among students, they should find another line of work. The school has a responsibility to educate their students. If they fail to do that for a student without finding alternate placement better equipped to handle whatever problem they face, they failed in their responsibility.

B) If a student has a consistent enough problem with antisocial behavior that they require constant intervention, they should be in a non-mainstream classroom or school that can address that problem while still fulfilling their responsibility to educate them.

C) There's a whole lot of punishment doled out in schools for non-violent conduct violations. Caught skipping class? Caught vaping in the parking lot? Dress code violation? Caught copying someone's test? Caught using a phone multiple times when you're not supposed to?

You seem to be deliberately implying that questioning any suspension means you support violence in school, which is completely ridiculous. Everything in life can be turned into a black-and-white issue if you ignore enough details and context.

Post reply on HN