Telling our children the truth: response to Paul Graham
55 comments
You actually seem to have stopped reading what Graham said right around "Lies we tell kids". You weren't lied to, and you don't lie to your kids; good for you. Graham also isn't advocate the lies. He's offering an explanation as to why.
You ignore (at least in this post) the millions who were not raised like you, and yet have strong relationships with their parents. You ignore parents who've actually had to answer some really difficult questions ("What's a prostitute?"). You ignore the fact that you can't correct all the lies and half-truths because you won't hear or see everything your child hears or sees.
Even the truth as one "believes" it comes with bias, which one might consider a lie. "I believe in God, but some people don't believe he exists because they haven't had a personal experience of Him" ... the truth, perhaps, but it conveys an unmistakable opinion; how does one's 8 year old truly infer "God may or may not exist" from that? Is that really "truth" if you nudge someone so perceptibly in the direction you want them to go?
It's quite convenient for you that they were right on all the things they taught you. Or were they?
You ignore (at least in this post) the millions who were not raised like you, and yet have strong relationships with their parents. You ignore parents who've actually had to answer some really difficult questions ("What's a prostitute?"). You ignore the fact that you can't correct all the lies and half-truths because you won't hear or see everything your child hears or sees.
Even the truth as one "believes" it comes with bias, which one might consider a lie. "I believe in God, but some people don't believe he exists because they haven't had a personal experience of Him" ... the truth, perhaps, but it conveys an unmistakable opinion; how does one's 8 year old truly infer "God may or may not exist" from that? Is that really "truth" if you nudge someone so perceptibly in the direction you want them to go?
It's quite convenient for you that they were right on all the things they taught you. Or were they?
>"Even the truth as one "believes" it comes with bias, which one might consider a lie."
When it comes to lying vs. "telling the truth" concerning ones beliefs, the [in]accuracy of the belief itself is moot.
Regardless of the justification, the sole purpose of a lie is deception. In PG's essay he points out reasons that we choose to deceive children, and the merits of those reasons are debatable. The author, and her parents, have taken the opposite tactic in child raising, which is admirable (imho).
Whether or not God exists, (which I believe undoubtedly that He does. Downmod if you'd like), when a parent answers a child's question concerning God in a fashion as described above...they are telling the truth. It does not matter one whit if they are right or not. As long as they believe what their answer is, they are not lying. In this particular case, the parents even go out of their way to point out that others believe otherwise, which is profitable for the child as well.
As a side note, I don't believe "What's a prostitute?" is a great example of a difficult question, and hardly worth lying to a child about.
When it comes to lying vs. "telling the truth" concerning ones beliefs, the [in]accuracy of the belief itself is moot.
Regardless of the justification, the sole purpose of a lie is deception. In PG's essay he points out reasons that we choose to deceive children, and the merits of those reasons are debatable. The author, and her parents, have taken the opposite tactic in child raising, which is admirable (imho).
Whether or not God exists, (which I believe undoubtedly that He does. Downmod if you'd like), when a parent answers a child's question concerning God in a fashion as described above...they are telling the truth. It does not matter one whit if they are right or not. As long as they believe what their answer is, they are not lying. In this particular case, the parents even go out of their way to point out that others believe otherwise, which is profitable for the child as well.
As a side note, I don't believe "What's a prostitute?" is a great example of a difficult question, and hardly worth lying to a child about.
From the article:
> As to religion, my parents said that they believed that God really does exist and that the Bible is a historical record of man's interactions with a real God...
Just by saying the fact that they themselves believe in god, they are giving the child a reason to bias towards that answer, aren't they? In the mind of the child, the foremost authority on all things occurring in the world around them is their parents, are they not?
The best way to answer this question is simply, "Noone knows", and leave it at that. Any further explanation will only lead the child one or another. Actually, not its not, because even by saying "Noone knows" you suggest a direction of thought, pushing them towards agnosticism rather than Catholicism, or Judaism, or Muslimism, or Whatever-ism. There is no right answer to this question. No matter what, by answering this question you are effecting the way they think about it. So just don't answer the question.
> As to religion, my parents said that they believed that God really does exist and that the Bible is a historical record of man's interactions with a real God...
Just by saying the fact that they themselves believe in god, they are giving the child a reason to bias towards that answer, aren't they? In the mind of the child, the foremost authority on all things occurring in the world around them is their parents, are they not?
The best way to answer this question is simply, "Noone knows", and leave it at that. Any further explanation will only lead the child one or another. Actually, not its not, because even by saying "Noone knows" you suggest a direction of thought, pushing them towards agnosticism rather than Catholicism, or Judaism, or Muslimism, or Whatever-ism. There is no right answer to this question. No matter what, by answering this question you are effecting the way they think about it. So just don't answer the question.
"So just don't answer the question."
Are you seriously suggesting this? It seems clear to me (and presumably to anyone else who has ever interacted with curious children) that this is a completely impractical and unrealistic solution. Have you ever tried _not answering_ a question from a kid? ;)
This dramatic influence-avoidance thing seems pretty ridiculous.
Are you seriously suggesting this? It seems clear to me (and presumably to anyone else who has ever interacted with curious children) that this is a completely impractical and unrealistic solution. Have you ever tried _not answering_ a question from a kid? ;)
This dramatic influence-avoidance thing seems pretty ridiculous.
I'm saying that if you do not want to influence them in any way the only option is to not answer the question. Otherwise, you ARE influencing them.
I'm not saying whether or not it is possible to not answer the question when a child asks you one. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T answer the question. But if you do not want to influence a child's thought patters in any given situation you have to not say anything (though likely silence will also influence them in some way as well). Hence why I said, "There is no right answer to this question".
"This dramatic influence-avoidance thing seems pretty ridiculous."
yes, it is ridiculous, which is why we lie to kids, because we have to give them some answer they will be satisfied with. There is no way to NOT lie to kids and not be pretty ridiculous.
I'm not saying whether or not it is possible to not answer the question when a child asks you one. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T answer the question. But if you do not want to influence a child's thought patters in any given situation you have to not say anything (though likely silence will also influence them in some way as well). Hence why I said, "There is no right answer to this question".
"This dramatic influence-avoidance thing seems pretty ridiculous."
yes, it is ridiculous, which is why we lie to kids, because we have to give them some answer they will be satisfied with. There is no way to NOT lie to kids and not be pretty ridiculous.
You made the topic slip from lying to influencing. Influencing their children is a big part of what parents do. It's called "education." It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it if you do it with honesty and respect.
I agree, influencing is what parents do, but influencing is also a form of lying:
> Influence: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.
The effect in the case of parents is that the children will end up believing the same things as their parents did. This is completely distinct from education, because education is the teaching of what is known to be true, or at least a non-biased account of the available information. This is something most people cannot do as its very difficult to do right. Either you stick to known facts (1 + 1 = 2) or you give a non-biased account of history (say, a war) by arguing for and against both for both sides equally. If you look at any moment in history and think someone was evil or good, you probably misunderstand something and need to go back to that topic and learn more.
Influence breeds from a onesidedness that is not evident in education. Education breeds from understanding. If one tells their children they believe in god and this makes them believe in god, is it really significantly different then saying there is a god? Either way they still have a choice, to believe you are right or not. As they are the child's parents, isn't it almost guaranteed that they'd trust your judgment at such a young age? (I'm assuming an age of around 4 years old.)
> It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it if you do it with honesty and respect.
This is also true, almost. As described above it will take more energy to fully explain the correct answer to any question then the child is willing to listen to. I'm not arguing that there is something wrong with it. I'm just acknowledging that it is lying, albeit unintentional and without malice, but it is still lying.
> Influence: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.
The effect in the case of parents is that the children will end up believing the same things as their parents did. This is completely distinct from education, because education is the teaching of what is known to be true, or at least a non-biased account of the available information. This is something most people cannot do as its very difficult to do right. Either you stick to known facts (1 + 1 = 2) or you give a non-biased account of history (say, a war) by arguing for and against both for both sides equally. If you look at any moment in history and think someone was evil or good, you probably misunderstand something and need to go back to that topic and learn more.
Influence breeds from a onesidedness that is not evident in education. Education breeds from understanding. If one tells their children they believe in god and this makes them believe in god, is it really significantly different then saying there is a god? Either way they still have a choice, to believe you are right or not. As they are the child's parents, isn't it almost guaranteed that they'd trust your judgment at such a young age? (I'm assuming an age of around 4 years old.)
> It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it if you do it with honesty and respect.
This is also true, almost. As described above it will take more energy to fully explain the correct answer to any question then the child is willing to listen to. I'm not arguing that there is something wrong with it. I'm just acknowledging that it is lying, albeit unintentional and without malice, but it is still lying.
Influence may be a goal of lying, but it may also be a motivation for honest communication.
If your intentions are self serving, or anyway if you are covertly selective in what you tell to others, if you use fallacies, or if you outright lie, you are probably doing wrong. There's a word for that, and it's manipulation. Influence doesn't have neutral connotations in English. Much on the contrary: when you say someone has influenced you, or is/was influential in general, you're praising, not condemning them.
Full neutrality is impossible. You should keep neutrality as a general aim, while recognizing you're more biased than you realise.
More specifically, arguing equally for and against both sides of any war is not neutral; it's a futile attempt guided by political correctness. My first impression on reading that is that you're overreacting to typical western (esp. American) good vs evil rhetoric.
You can teach about a war without making explicit moral judgements about either side. There are many reasons to study a war that don't require you to discuss ethics (for example, you may be studying socioeconomic motivations and impact.) Or, if you want to discuss morals in a non judgmental way, you can describe the system of values that was current in each side at the time of the war.
That said, using the narration of a war as an illustration of some point in ethics is no worse, per se, than making such point in first place. In general, one side of the war will conform better than the other to some system of values. As a parent who is transmitting your child a system of values anyway, making a taboo of stating explicit judgments on either side of a war is pointless.
Hiding your beliefs from your children just not to influence them is a form of lying, and it's futile IMO. Do you have to make up cover stories about where you're going when attending church? Do you have to tell your relatives to keep the secret? Ridiculous.
And anyway, where would a 4 year old get his first ideas about religion from? Will they discover the Truth by themselves from cogito ergo sum? Nope, they'll be marked by the next influential person they meet: a teacher, a friend, etc. How is that any better?
Just stating your beliefs, while acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong, is a very honest thing to do. The child will grow to make their own opinion before it matters for any practical purposes anyway. That's what my parents did with me, and I stopped believing in God at around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I never felt pressured either way, and I carry no trauma that I know of.
If your intentions are self serving, or anyway if you are covertly selective in what you tell to others, if you use fallacies, or if you outright lie, you are probably doing wrong. There's a word for that, and it's manipulation. Influence doesn't have neutral connotations in English. Much on the contrary: when you say someone has influenced you, or is/was influential in general, you're praising, not condemning them.
Full neutrality is impossible. You should keep neutrality as a general aim, while recognizing you're more biased than you realise.
More specifically, arguing equally for and against both sides of any war is not neutral; it's a futile attempt guided by political correctness. My first impression on reading that is that you're overreacting to typical western (esp. American) good vs evil rhetoric.
You can teach about a war without making explicit moral judgements about either side. There are many reasons to study a war that don't require you to discuss ethics (for example, you may be studying socioeconomic motivations and impact.) Or, if you want to discuss morals in a non judgmental way, you can describe the system of values that was current in each side at the time of the war.
That said, using the narration of a war as an illustration of some point in ethics is no worse, per se, than making such point in first place. In general, one side of the war will conform better than the other to some system of values. As a parent who is transmitting your child a system of values anyway, making a taboo of stating explicit judgments on either side of a war is pointless.
Hiding your beliefs from your children just not to influence them is a form of lying, and it's futile IMO. Do you have to make up cover stories about where you're going when attending church? Do you have to tell your relatives to keep the secret? Ridiculous.
And anyway, where would a 4 year old get his first ideas about religion from? Will they discover the Truth by themselves from cogito ergo sum? Nope, they'll be marked by the next influential person they meet: a teacher, a friend, etc. How is that any better?
Just stating your beliefs, while acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong, is a very honest thing to do. The child will grow to make their own opinion before it matters for any practical purposes anyway. That's what my parents did with me, and I stopped believing in God at around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I never felt pressured either way, and I carry no trauma that I know of.
This was a very good response to what I wrote. I applaud you.
> Full neutrality is impossible.
Completely agreed.
> You can teach about a war without making explicit moral judgements about either side.
True, and the more I think about it, the less I believe it'll come up in a conversation with a 4 year old. Especially on specifics such as the morality of a specific war.
> Hiding your beliefs from your children just not to influence them is a form of lying, and it's futile IMO.
Very true. Hiding information is definitely a form of lying. See Mark Twain's On the Decadence of the Art of Lying, he makes a very good argument for saying lying is not a bad thing, in certain circumstances, but also that not telling the whole truth is also lying.
> Do you have to tell your relatives to keep the secret? Ridiculous.
My general belief was that relatives would have less of a dramatic impact on the child's behavior patterns than the parents of the child. So while the child might know they believe in god, it wont necessarily translate to the child believing in god himself. Oddly, I never connected Christmas with Christianity when I was a child.
> Just stating your beliefs, while acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong, is a very honest thing to do. The child will grow to make their own opinion before it matters for any practical purposes anyway. That's what my parents did with me, and I stopped believing in God at around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I never felt pressured either way, and I carry no trauma that I know of.
I believe your point was well made. I took things a bit to far with the not lying. I still believe influence is a form of lying when working from the perceptive of a parent to a child, but I now believe that the effect is far less than I had originally believed. Thinking back on it, my own parents did the same thing yours did, though I was pressured slightly into believing in Catholicism, the pressure wasn't so harsh that I felt compelled to actually do so. I guess I was a bit harsh on the naivety of children, thinking ideas would be implanted in their young minds far easier than they actually are. I think also, that I was tying the words 'influence' and 'manipulation' a bit closer than they actually are. It does irk me though, that some children take their parents beliefs to heart without even thinking about it, sometimes without even realizing it.
> Full neutrality is impossible.
Completely agreed.
> You can teach about a war without making explicit moral judgements about either side.
True, and the more I think about it, the less I believe it'll come up in a conversation with a 4 year old. Especially on specifics such as the morality of a specific war.
> Hiding your beliefs from your children just not to influence them is a form of lying, and it's futile IMO.
Very true. Hiding information is definitely a form of lying. See Mark Twain's On the Decadence of the Art of Lying, he makes a very good argument for saying lying is not a bad thing, in certain circumstances, but also that not telling the whole truth is also lying.
> Do you have to tell your relatives to keep the secret? Ridiculous.
My general belief was that relatives would have less of a dramatic impact on the child's behavior patterns than the parents of the child. So while the child might know they believe in god, it wont necessarily translate to the child believing in god himself. Oddly, I never connected Christmas with Christianity when I was a child.
> Just stating your beliefs, while acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong, is a very honest thing to do. The child will grow to make their own opinion before it matters for any practical purposes anyway. That's what my parents did with me, and I stopped believing in God at around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I never felt pressured either way, and I carry no trauma that I know of.
I believe your point was well made. I took things a bit to far with the not lying. I still believe influence is a form of lying when working from the perceptive of a parent to a child, but I now believe that the effect is far less than I had originally believed. Thinking back on it, my own parents did the same thing yours did, though I was pressured slightly into believing in Catholicism, the pressure wasn't so harsh that I felt compelled to actually do so. I guess I was a bit harsh on the naivety of children, thinking ideas would be implanted in their young minds far easier than they actually are. I think also, that I was tying the words 'influence' and 'manipulation' a bit closer than they actually are. It does irk me though, that some children take their parents beliefs to heart without even thinking about it, sometimes without even realizing it.
Influence doesn't have neutral connotations in English.
Sorry, I meant to say it doesn't have negative connotations.
Sorry, I meant to say it doesn't have negative connotations.
The best situation is probably for the parents to disagree, actually.
I'm not sure disagreeing makes much sense if the question is "Is there a God?" What are you disagreeing to? That there isn't a god? Then you will be lying to your child and this is what the thread is about NOT doing.
If instead you mean, you must always disagree with whatever your child's opinion is, I don't disagree. You have to argue both sides of any philosophical question though, less you accidentally push your own beliefs on them, and this is extremely difficult to do correctly. Orson Scott Card's character Han Fei-Tzu is an excellent example of the type of teaching discipline I hold sacred. When someone makes an opinion about anything, you have to argue the other-side as well as you possibly can, and if your charge changes their mind, you have to switch sides and argue for that side. This requires an incredible amount of knowledge and intelligence which most parents are not going to be able to replicate.
Teaching in this matter will force the child to learn how to look at any problem from different viewpoints.
If instead you mean, you must always disagree with whatever your child's opinion is, I don't disagree. You have to argue both sides of any philosophical question though, less you accidentally push your own beliefs on them, and this is extremely difficult to do correctly. Orson Scott Card's character Han Fei-Tzu is an excellent example of the type of teaching discipline I hold sacred. When someone makes an opinion about anything, you have to argue the other-side as well as you possibly can, and if your charge changes their mind, you have to switch sides and argue for that side. This requires an incredible amount of knowledge and intelligence which most parents are not going to be able to replicate.
Teaching in this matter will force the child to learn how to look at any problem from different viewpoints.
"Scientific evidence to date suggests there is no God"
IMHO That's the truth, and the facts.
IMHO That's the truth, and the facts.
The truth is also that scientific evidence to date does not suggest there isn't a god. Unless, of course, you know of something I don't. Ideas such a creationism have long since been dissolved, but the existence of God? Not so much.
Additionally, I believe there was a very good essay somewhere that argued there was a heaven and a hell. Saying that if we know there are an infinite number of other dimensions with an infinite number of possibilities, whose to say there isn't one where ONLY good things happen and one where ONLY bad things happen. These places would be heaven and hell, respectively. Of course, if someone is actually sent to one of these places, they will immediately change it if they do something contrary to what is expected in that specific realm, no longer making it heaven or hell, and a new heaven or hell takes its place where that even didn't happen.
So, if heaven and hell exist, who is to say god does not?
Additionally, I believe there was a very good essay somewhere that argued there was a heaven and a hell. Saying that if we know there are an infinite number of other dimensions with an infinite number of possibilities, whose to say there isn't one where ONLY good things happen and one where ONLY bad things happen. These places would be heaven and hell, respectively. Of course, if someone is actually sent to one of these places, they will immediately change it if they do something contrary to what is expected in that specific realm, no longer making it heaven or hell, and a new heaven or hell takes its place where that even didn't happen.
So, if heaven and hell exist, who is to say god does not?
Well, true. But you could argue the same about Santa Claus or any number of mythical creatures.
Do fairies live in the bottom of my garden? I'd say scientific evidence to date suggests not.
Do fairies live in the bottom of my garden? I'd say scientific evidence to date suggests not.
Luckily the question doesn't really come up in a community of non religious types.
I think the community here just knows that science is not really the right tool to use to decide if God exists or not.
We probably also know that the argument degrades rather quickly once started.
We probably also know that the argument degrades rather quickly once started.
Oh I was meaning in my real life community. In the UK I think religion is quite a bit rarer these days, so it doesn't really come up as a topic of conversation here.
"You ignore..."
She also ignored an infinite number of other things.
Congratulations. You just uncovered another level in pg's hierarchy of disagreement: acusing the other of ignoring anything she didn't say. Cool.
She also ignored an infinite number of other things.
Congratulations. You just uncovered another level in pg's hierarchy of disagreement: acusing the other of ignoring anything she didn't say. Cool.
Popular comedy in the UK (Armstrong and Miller) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cjf_u_Q-ho
"Dad, why did you and mum get a divorce?"
"The thing is Paul, it was all your fault"
There's a whole series of these sketches with similar themes. Telling the truth in all instances to kids is idiotic :)
One of my other favorites that I can't find on youtube/script:
"Dad, why don't I have many friends?"
"The thing is Paul, you're just not that interesting. I sometimes struggle to stay awake when talking to you myself." etc etc
"Dad, why did you and mum get a divorce?"
"The thing is Paul, it was all your fault"
There's a whole series of these sketches with similar themes. Telling the truth in all instances to kids is idiotic :)
One of my other favorites that I can't find on youtube/script:
"Dad, why don't I have many friends?"
"The thing is Paul, you're just not that interesting. I sometimes struggle to stay awake when talking to you myself." etc etc
My parents were the same way. What's interesting about Paul's essay is that many of the examples of lies were things that the vast majority of people believed 40 years ago, but that many fewer believe today. For example - the taboo against swearing used to be much stronger among adults, as was the taboo against pre-martial sex. Most adults used to believe in God.
The cause of the lies is that a generation as a whole stops believing things their parents taught. But when this generation has children, the only model for parenting is their own parents. Thus they teach their kids like their parents did, and that includes "lies" that the adults no longer believe. In other words, the "lies" adults teach kid represents an echo of once widely held beliefs among adults.
The cause of the lies is that a generation as a whole stops believing things their parents taught. But when this generation has children, the only model for parenting is their own parents. Thus they teach their kids like their parents did, and that includes "lies" that the adults no longer believe. In other words, the "lies" adults teach kid represents an echo of once widely held beliefs among adults.
You pride yourself on "intellectual honesty" and describing the process of cancer accurately, but then say a dying person gains "eternal life". Some might call it less than truthful to define "death" as "life".
I don't lie to children, either. I tell them that black is white, up is down and short is long ... but I do it compassionately.
I don't lie to children, either. I tell them that black is white, up is down and short is long ... but I do it compassionately.
Unfortunately there are weird structures in the human brain that cause even smart people to believe in this crap. I suppose it has evolutionary benefits in the management of complexity. You focus on the actions of yourself and your prey, everything else is the province of the sky God. If you spend too much time brooding over how Aunt Judy got eaten by a saber-tooth tiger then the wildebeest you're hunting might get away.
It's frustrating that these weird beliefs are so widespread in modern society, but it looks like the world is slowly moving away from it. It gives me higher self-esteem to be secular now when I am ridiculed for it than in the future when most people believe like me.
It's frustrating that these weird beliefs are so widespread in modern society, but it looks like the world is slowly moving away from it. It gives me higher self-esteem to be secular now when I am ridiculed for it than in the future when most people believe like me.
What's your point? This is a pointless esssay, and ignores the reality and the complexity of the real world. Children are not equiped to understand everything. So simplify.
This is a pointless esssay, and ignores the reality and the complexity of the real world.
It seems to me that the point of the essay was that it is possible to tell children the truth, even though the truth is complex. The author's childhood and parenthood, as described in the essay, provide at least one example that it can work.
It seems to me that the point of the essay was that it is possible to tell children the truth, even though the truth is complex. The author's childhood and parenthood, as described in the essay, provide at least one example that it can work.
Yes, but the wisdom of thousands of years of human cultural evolution as well as our instincts tell us not to do this. If it worked in one case that is no reason to also do it.
My dad recently told a story about how he got scammed out of practically all his heavy machinery when I was 8 years old. He was completely broke, his machines were in another town, the scammer had run off and he had no means of earning money without transporting his machines back. But he had no money to do this. So for 6 months, he ran around trying to borrow money so he could transport the machines back and start earning money.
I remember when the machines were gone. But I did not associate it with anything, I thought they were out on a job. If my Dad had told me that he had been scammed, and the machines were stuck and he had no income, and that debts were piling up every single day, I would have understood the problem, and to god, that would have been the most terrible thing that I could have imagined.
I would have wondered how someone could scam my dad. I would have come up with ways of trying to get the machines home. I would have worried that we would become poor.
Knowing that information would have been a terrible thing for me to know as an 8 year old, exactly because I would have understood what it meant. If any one of you claims that telling an 8 year old that type of stuff is good for the child, then you are damn idiots who have no place raising a child.
For me as a child, lightning was already very scary, even though I understood how unlikely it was to happen. Compare an event like my father losing his money to something abstract and unlikely to lightning, and you understand by how much more it would have worried me.
Anyone who advocates telling children that type of information is completely unfit to raise children.
My dad recently told a story about how he got scammed out of practically all his heavy machinery when I was 8 years old. He was completely broke, his machines were in another town, the scammer had run off and he had no means of earning money without transporting his machines back. But he had no money to do this. So for 6 months, he ran around trying to borrow money so he could transport the machines back and start earning money.
I remember when the machines were gone. But I did not associate it with anything, I thought they were out on a job. If my Dad had told me that he had been scammed, and the machines were stuck and he had no income, and that debts were piling up every single day, I would have understood the problem, and to god, that would have been the most terrible thing that I could have imagined.
I would have wondered how someone could scam my dad. I would have come up with ways of trying to get the machines home. I would have worried that we would become poor.
Knowing that information would have been a terrible thing for me to know as an 8 year old, exactly because I would have understood what it meant. If any one of you claims that telling an 8 year old that type of stuff is good for the child, then you are damn idiots who have no place raising a child.
For me as a child, lightning was already very scary, even though I understood how unlikely it was to happen. Compare an event like my father losing his money to something abstract and unlikely to lightning, and you understand by how much more it would have worried me.
Anyone who advocates telling children that type of information is completely unfit to raise children.
Well, I agree that you should not be 100% truthful to your kids since our role is to slowly introduce them to the real world, but you should hear the stuff that my mother-in-law comes up with to convince my 3 year old to do things: "I have to leave your house now because my doggy is lonely and misses me" or "we can't play with that toy right now because the toy is tired and wants to go to bed" or "its time to leave the playground because the policeman just called me up and said its time to go."
Incidentally, this is exactly what the essay advocates. So maxklein and brianr are arguing non-existant points.
Sadly, I think your parents are the very minor exception, not the rule. This is a great column about the subject by Jon Carroll from the Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/23/...
Let's hope future parents can be more enlightened...
Let's hope future parents can be more enlightened...
So what about questions like
"Which of us kids is your favorite?" "Do you like my latest bit of art? toilet roll glued to a box"
What about adopted kids? What about kids who came from really difficult childhoods. What about a kid that was the product of his mum being raped?
Do those kids really need to know that? Are they emotionally developed enough to deal with such harsh realities?
The OP doesn't seem to have had to deal with particularly hard questions at all.
Say there was an escaped convict loose in your town, who had previously murdered several children. Your kid sees some vague reference to it on the news before bed time, and asks "What is that about dad?" Would you answer:
a). Oh it's quite scary Son. There's a madman who sneaks into kids bedrooms and cuts them up. He's loose outside.
b). Nothing to worry about, get back into bed :)
"Which of us kids is your favorite?" "Do you like my latest bit of art? toilet roll glued to a box"
What about adopted kids? What about kids who came from really difficult childhoods. What about a kid that was the product of his mum being raped?
Do those kids really need to know that? Are they emotionally developed enough to deal with such harsh realities?
The OP doesn't seem to have had to deal with particularly hard questions at all.
Say there was an escaped convict loose in your town, who had previously murdered several children. Your kid sees some vague reference to it on the news before bed time, and asks "What is that about dad?" Would you answer:
a). Oh it's quite scary Son. There's a madman who sneaks into kids bedrooms and cuts them up. He's loose outside.
b). Nothing to worry about, get back into bed :)
Honesty and truth are not absolute. The delivery is quite important, as is the environment in which this delivery occurs. In a family environment where parents have been honest with their children, their children were nurtured in a different way, so examples such as these are quite meaningless.
For the sake of argument:
> "Do you like my latest bit of art? toilet roll glued to a box"
You're a regular Duchamp!
As for the multiple choice question (which is worse than a CNN poll), how about none of the above, or
c). (Father has already explained the situation in an honest way to his son, explaining, too, the precautions he -- and the town -- are taking to keep his son safe.)
In the end, though, one of the "lies" that parents have been telling children for ages now is the bedtime story where the children are killed to teach a harsh reality: back then, children died quite often.
For the sake of argument:
> "Do you like my latest bit of art? toilet roll glued to a box"
You're a regular Duchamp!
As for the multiple choice question (which is worse than a CNN poll), how about none of the above, or
c). (Father has already explained the situation in an honest way to his son, explaining, too, the precautions he -- and the town -- are taking to keep his son safe.)
In the end, though, one of the "lies" that parents have been telling children for ages now is the bedtime story where the children are killed to teach a harsh reality: back then, children died quite often.
Nice answer @ Duchamp.
I don't think kids are developed enough to calculate risk well enough. Adults also generally suck at that. So even if you tell him the good news (What precautions you+town have taken to keep him safe), he will focus on the bad news (Murderer on the loose) so I don't actually think in the kids eyes that is any better than (a).
I don't think kids are developed enough to calculate risk well enough. Adults also generally suck at that. So even if you tell him the good news (What precautions you+town have taken to keep him safe), he will focus on the bad news (Murderer on the loose) so I don't actually think in the kids eyes that is any better than (a).
What's your stance on the question of race and intelligence? It's a hardball, but fits the bill as something that's hard to talk about.
If you determined that there were differences between races, and it was in the best interest of your children to discriminate against certain people, what would you tell them? Would you ever tell them to discriminate against other races if that was truly in their best interest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
If you determined that there were differences between races, and it was in the best interest of your children to discriminate against certain people, what would you tell them? Would you ever tell them to discriminate against other races if that was truly in their best interest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Even if there are differences between races in terms on intelligence, how could it ever be in their best interest to discriminate against certain groups of people? There is considerable overlap in the distributions of ability among races, so prejudging an individual based on their particular group's distribution doesn't ever make any sense.
If my hypothetical child asked about that, I would explain what we actually know about what causes differences in ability, such as socioeconomic factors.
If my hypothetical child asked about that, I would explain what we actually know about what causes differences in ability, such as socioeconomic factors.
The general argument on race is ugly in many ways, but I think it serves as a good example of something that is controversial today, not 120 years ago. Whether racial differences exist and whether discrimination is useful in some cases is debatable. What's more important is whether you (I'm sorry about the ad hominem) would lie to your child about something as controversial as race just to be in sync with society.
I'm not saying (or rather, I don't want to say) that race exists and discrimination is good. But it's the closest argument we have to the evolution argument of days past.
I'm not saying (or rather, I don't want to say) that race exists and discrimination is good. But it's the closest argument we have to the evolution argument of days past.
Even if there are differences between ages in terms of height, how could it ever be in my kid's best interest to think that the average six-year-old is taller than the average five-year-old, even though there are five-year-olds taller than individual six-year-olds? The overlap in these distributions is so considerable that Bayes' Theorem doesn't apply.
Provided you believe that P(A | B) = P(A & B)/P(B), Bayes theorem always applies.
I was making fun of the previous poster, who seems to be arguing that even if group A has an average IQ of 115 and group B has an average IQ of 70, there is overlap between their distributions and so it should be shocking to you that there are more A's with Nobel Prizes and more B's unemployed or in prison.
It's not about having more or less of something. Discrimination implies an act of selection. That more A's have Nobel Prizes doesn't suggest that I should always pick A's over B's when I need an intelligent person.
Also, there are no racial groups for which your average IQs hold. My point is not just that there is any overlap, it's that there is considerable overlap, which renders discrimination based on race quite useless.
Also, there are no racial groups for which your average IQs hold. My point is not just that there is any overlap, it's that there is considerable overlap, which renders discrimination based on race quite useless.
Most racists I know of don't suggest that one should use race when other variables are available -- e.g. they don't say that a black guy in a suit is more dangerous than a white meth-head with a gun, even though statistically black people are more criminal, because intuitively the armed cracked-out guy is even more criminal. I don't see how knowing average IQs of different ethnic groups obligates you to make mistaken judgments by overemphasizing them -- are you worried that other people will make this elementary mistake?
Also, discrimination means being able to tell different things apart. A 'discriminating' taste in wine means knowing the difference between good wine and bad, not thinking that all the wine from region A is better than any wine from region B.
Ashkenazim and sub-Saharan Africans?
Again, with the 'some overlap renders it useless' argument. I still don't understand why you will not also educate your child against the dangers of thinking that age correlates with height, when everyone knows that there are ten-year-olds who all taller than particular nine-year-olds -- and that you can have arbitrarily narrow age groups that make the average difference far smaller than the difference within each group. Overlapping bell curves with different medians still have different medians, however much they overlap.
Also, discrimination means being able to tell different things apart. A 'discriminating' taste in wine means knowing the difference between good wine and bad, not thinking that all the wine from region A is better than any wine from region B.
Ashkenazim and sub-Saharan Africans?
Again, with the 'some overlap renders it useless' argument. I still don't understand why you will not also educate your child against the dangers of thinking that age correlates with height, when everyone knows that there are ten-year-olds who all taller than particular nine-year-olds -- and that you can have arbitrarily narrow age groups that make the average difference far smaller than the difference within each group. Overlapping bell curves with different medians still have different medians, however much they overlap.
My argument was in terms of real world situations in which it would be in someone's best interests to discriminate based on race. The point is that there are very few, if any, since there are other variables that are a far better proxy for intelligence than race due to the overlap in distributions. I wasn't trying to say that the overlap makes the medians irrelevant altogether; it just makes them irrelevant in almost any real situation.
The knowledge that the average ten-year old is taller than the average nine-year old is just as useless as knowing that the average Ashkenazi Jew has a higher IQ than the average sub-Saharan African.
The knowledge that the average ten-year old is taller than the average nine-year old is just as useless as knowing that the average Ashkenazi Jew has a higher IQ than the average sub-Saharan African.
So are you arguing that it isn't useful to know about racial differences, even if they're true? I hear about them all the time! People wonder why there are so many black people in prison, or why there are so many Asians earning PhDs. Some people have good explanations for these phenomena. One problem with ignoring data about racial differences is that you end up being forced to argue that some races (or all races) are viciously racist -- that white folks want Africa to be a hellhole, and are willing to sacrifice all kinds of natural resources to keep it that way. The world makes more sense if people vary in abilities and tendencies, rather than being absolutely equal in every way, except that some people are evil.
You would really be indifferent between finding yourself in Boro Park or Bedford-Stuyvessant? I understand the rent is very cheap in the latter (I lived there a while). Bed-Stuy doesn't have sub-Saharan Africans (or if it does, they're very smart immigrants who are likely to move to a better neighborhood in a few years), but the people there are from roughly that group, plus some admixture.
You would really be indifferent between finding yourself in Boro Park or Bedford-Stuyvessant? I understand the rent is very cheap in the latter (I lived there a while). Bed-Stuy doesn't have sub-Saharan Africans (or if it does, they're very smart immigrants who are likely to move to a better neighborhood in a few years), but the people there are from roughly that group, plus some admixture.
Actually, I think the reason so much attention is paid to which races earn PhDs or end up in jail is to find out how to increase the number of PhDs of other races or reduce the prison population of certain races. If those differences are caused by genetic differences, then there's nothing we can do to change that. There are other factors at work in both situations, like socioeconomic status and culture, which we can use to make everyone better off.
I think socioeconomic status is a better predictor of criminality than race. With that said, if I'm walking through an unfamiliar neighborhood, race is one of the few variables I have to work with. Unfortunately, in America, race is a moderately effective indicator of socioeconomic status, so I would use it as one factor in judging my safety. Even then, I usually use clothes and appearance rather than race to judge one's propensity for crime.
This is actually a more interesting problem in terms of what to tell children than racial differences in intelligence. I think by the time they're old enough to be somewhere without adult supervision, they are able to determine what looks like a poor area or poor person and act accordingly. I can see the logic that would lead someone to tell their kids to use race as such a proxy instead, but the consequences of doing so make it not worth the negligible increase in safety in my opinion.
I think socioeconomic status is a better predictor of criminality than race. With that said, if I'm walking through an unfamiliar neighborhood, race is one of the few variables I have to work with. Unfortunately, in America, race is a moderately effective indicator of socioeconomic status, so I would use it as one factor in judging my safety. Even then, I usually use clothes and appearance rather than race to judge one's propensity for crime.
This is actually a more interesting problem in terms of what to tell children than racial differences in intelligence. I think by the time they're old enough to be somewhere without adult supervision, they are able to determine what looks like a poor area or poor person and act accordingly. I can see the logic that would lead someone to tell their kids to use race as such a proxy instead, but the consequences of doing so make it not worth the negligible increase in safety in my opinion.
Actually, race is the single best predictor of how much crime to expect in a given area. Besides population already in prison, at least.
I think it's a red herring to ask why we're collecting the data in order to decide whether or not the data are accurate.
I think it's a red herring to ask why we're collecting the data in order to decide whether or not the data are accurate.
Really? That would be interesting data to look at. Do you have a source?
I don't care why we're collecting the data, and I was assuming the data was accurate. I'm just saying that as far as genetic differences are a factor in the data, there's nothing we can do about it or with it, so it's useless.
I don't care why we're collecting the data, and I was assuming the data was accurate. I'm just saying that as far as genetic differences are a factor in the data, there's nothing we can do about it or with it, so it's useless.
race and intelligence?
I don't think this subject comes up very often with small children. "Discrimination" is just a probabilistic decision made wherever imperfect knowledge exists. That is, you look at the demographics of a neighborhood before moving there, knowing full well that it's not an ideal measure. Again, what can children do about such a thing?
The OP seemed to be setting up a scenario in which his parents said, "...and others disagree" and so made themselves seem "truthful". That's halfway to getting to the real truth which is, "We ourselves are completely without a clue, but prefer Yahweh over Ganesh because an elephant head is bullcrap a mite too obvious for our tastes. Others disagree."
The real secret is that truth doesn't matter too much unless it involves something that can damage you. God, it just so happens, is not among the things that can damage you. And so, feel free to believe whatever you want.
I don't think this subject comes up very often with small children. "Discrimination" is just a probabilistic decision made wherever imperfect knowledge exists. That is, you look at the demographics of a neighborhood before moving there, knowing full well that it's not an ideal measure. Again, what can children do about such a thing?
The OP seemed to be setting up a scenario in which his parents said, "...and others disagree" and so made themselves seem "truthful". That's halfway to getting to the real truth which is, "We ourselves are completely without a clue, but prefer Yahweh over Ganesh because an elephant head is bullcrap a mite too obvious for our tastes. Others disagree."
The real secret is that truth doesn't matter too much unless it involves something that can damage you. God, it just so happens, is not among the things that can damage you. And so, feel free to believe whatever you want.
> If you determined that there were differences between races, and it was in the best interest of your children to discriminate against certain people, what would you tell them?
I would tell them to beware of plausible-sounding theories. And I'd have them read this:
http://rondam.blogspot.com/2007/11/science-103-virtue-of-sim...
I would tell them to beware of plausible-sounding theories. And I'd have them read this:
http://rondam.blogspot.com/2007/11/science-103-virtue-of-sim...
This is a classic case of the harm that not lying to your children can cause. The things my parents told me when I was young shaped a large part of my world view. If you were a racist, enough of that would seep through to influence your child. If you tried to explain bell curves and so on, and you believed that white people were more clever than black people, your child would grasp the subtext of what you are saying.
The best thing to do is to not pre-infect your child with your own personal notions on controversial topics till he is equipped to think independently about them.
The best thing to do is to not pre-infect your child with your own personal notions on controversial topics till he is equipped to think independently about them.
Which topics qualify as controversial is itself something that there can be disagreement on. Race and intelligence is one of them. The parent who purposely imparts to their child a race preference does not believe that racism is a controversial topic.
Parents who think this way probably sound like regular parents, but more succinct. They have one more tool to identify harmful people and situations, and they don't have to rely on proxies ("He's from a bad neighborhood") to say what they mean.
Presumably people could/would tell kids what they believe themselves, or if they don't have a clue, they could tell their kids that they don't have a clue.
[deleted]
[deleted]
pg "master of the straw man"
I sure wish he'd stick to technical stuff. The combination of arrogance and ignorance displayed in that essay is a bit too much. I'd be a lot happier if he'd release another version of Arc than to peddle this drivel :(
I sure wish he'd stick to technical stuff. The combination of arrogance and ignorance displayed in that essay is a bit too much. I'd be a lot happier if he'd release another version of Arc than to peddle this drivel :(
You haven't even gone to the trouble to erect a straw man. You've just made a groundless accusation and dismissal of pg's opinions.
Forgive me if I don't take your comment seriously.
Forgive me if I don't take your comment seriously.
I never remember my parents swearing at anyone or about anything. They were honest when they were angry or upset, but did not feel it was helpful to get demeaning or curse things or people. I have also tried to help my children work out their problems and anger without resorting to shouting or swearing, because I agree that the escalation is more hurtful than helpful. We don't always succeed, but that is the goal.
When our textbooks glossed over the truth or TV programs misrepresented reality, my parents pointed it out. I have done the same with my children. When we asked about sex, drugs, alcohol, my parents explained it straightforwardly and also explained why they had chosen to remain virgins until married, and not risk addiction to mind-alerting substances (or even health-altering tobacco).
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were always fun imaginary characters. Jesus was a historical person, whom, my parents honestly explained, some people considered just another human being, but that a third of the world's population considered something much more, themselves included.
I have similarly tried to tell the simple truth to my children. What is lost by that?
As to religion, my parents said that they believed that God really does exist and that the Bible is a historical record of man's interactions with a real God. But they did not hide from us, even when we were very little, the fact that there are many people who think God does not exist, and that it is really only the personal experience of God for oneself that can "prove" his existence (and the existence of a spiritual realm) to an individual. They pointed out that if a person has never experienced God, he has no reason to believe God exists (unless he wants to accept the testimonial of others who have as proof enough). As a result I was able to be honest when I myself had not yet encountered God, and never look down on others who had no reason to believe in him having not encountered him.
I always felt free to challenge my parent's values and perspectives because they did not demean opposing opinions, but explained clearly and directly why they had chosen the path that they were on. They practiced what they preached. I have tried to do the same with my children (now all in their twenties).
My children have the advantage of seeing the honesty of my parent's lives as well as my own and my husband's. When my mother got cancer, we sat our kids down and told them everything that was happening... they knew about the chemo and the pain and her 5 year fight to live was played out before their eyes. On her death bed my mother asked my second son about the paper she had been helping him research for college. He knew her body was soon to stop functioning... and that while some thought her spirit was also about to end, none of us believed that was true. We burned her body, scattered her ashes and rejoiced in her release from pain into eternal life.
I believe if parents do not think that heaven exists they should tell that to their children the first time they ask. But they should also tell them that many others believe heaven does exist. Or vice versa. That would be telling them the truth.
Perhaps my parents were so straightforward because they were highly educated (my father graduated from Caltech (BS), Columbia (MA), Cornell (PhD) and Princeton Seminary, my mother summa cum laude from USC), so intellectual honesty was important to them. Or perhaps they were honest because they believed in the moral obligation of truth because of their faith in a moral God.
Whatever the reason, I would like to affirm to all parents that truth works. Be honest about why you have chosen to believe what you believe and live how you live. Be honest about the mistakes you have made and are making. Kids can handle truth delivered compassionately. What they need is a strong relationship with you and each other, and that cannot be built on deception.