# LMD Async Tutoring **URL:** \ **Category:** Tutoring\ **Created:** [April 23, 2024, 12:05am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933 "2024-04-23T00:05:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 42
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2024, 11:39pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/822 "2024-12-18T23:39:07Z")
I think I could’ve got a lot more brainstorm items on the list by listing types of plants i knew, like vegetables or fruits or tree/wood species, but I steered away from doing that whenever I started doing that because I wanted to think of other less obvious things. ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2024, 2:48am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/823 "2024-12-19T02:48:31Z")
> [@LMD](#): > > From _The Myth of the Framework_ by Karl Popper: > > > Another tendency which contributes to the myth of the framework, and which deserves careful scrutiny, is connected with historical or cultural relativism. This is a view whose beginnings may perhaps be discerned in Herodotus. > > > > Herodotus seems to have been one of those somewhat rare people whose minds are broadened by travel. At first he was no doubt shocked by the many strange customs and institutions which he encountered in the Middle East. But he learned to respect them, and to look on some of them critically, and to regard others as the results of historical accidents: he learned to be tolerant, and he even acquired the ability to see the customs and institutions of his own country through the eyes of his barbarian hosts. > > > > This is a healthy attitude. But it may lead to relativism, that is, to the view that there is no absolute or objective truth, but rather one truth for the Greeks, another for the Egyptians, still another for the Syrians, and so on. notes/working: there is another tendency - this tendency contributes to the acceptance of the myth - this tendency deserves careful scrutiny - this tendency is connected with cultural/historical relativism - relativism’s beginnings may perhaps be discerned in Herodotus - ~~Herodotus was a rare mind~~ - ~~Herodotus’s mind seemed to have been broadened by travel~~ - ~~implied: most people’s minds aren’t broadened by travel~~ - implied: the relevant thing about travel in this context is _culture clash_ - ~~At first he would’ve been shocked by the foreign customs of the Middle East~~ - But he learned to respect their customs - he learned to look at some of their customs critically - he learned to regard other customs as the result of historical accident - he learned to be tolerant of these differences in culture - he learned to view his country’s customs through foreign eyes - This tolerant and critical attitude is healthy - This attitude can lead to relativism - Implied: relativism is false, and the wrong conclusion to draw from the attitude - (expansion on why conclusion is wrong) It shouldn’t lead to relativism because the fact that people have different ideas (including different ideas for how to judge ideas) doesn’t mean that there are no true ideas including true ideas for how to judge ideas. It’s a non sequitur. - Relativism is the view that there is no objective truth - Relativism would mean there is a truth for each country or culture - (expansion) Relativism’s view is therefore that no objective standards for comparing the customs of different countries exist. Each can only judge relative to his own standards, which are merely arbitrary. themes: tendency connected with relativism relativism attitude of tolerance leading to relativism tendency to contribute to myth attitude of herodotus is healthy, but it can lead to relativism paraphrase: _Another tendency contributing to the myth is to conclude from the experience of culture clash a form of cultural or historical relativism. Like Herodotus, who in Ancient times travelled and learnt of the different customs of his neighbours, we might learn to form a tolerant yet critical attitude towards our customs and theirs. But we shouldn’t conclude from these differences that there are no objective standards for comparing cultures._ This took over 20 minutes just to come up with this paraphrase. My brainstorm didn’t seem to be of much help. It was a bit overwhelming having so many things. There were lots that seemed to be relevant. I could ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2024, 4:38am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/824 "2024-12-19T04:38:43Z")
From _The Myth of the Framework_ by Karl Popper: > It is now fifty years since I arrived at a view very similar to the myth of the framework – and I not only arrived at it but at once went beyond it. It was during the great and heated discussions after the First World War that I found out how difficult it was to get anywhere with people living in a closed framework – I mean people like the Marxists, the Freudians, and the Adlerians. None of them could ever be shaken in his adopted view of the world. Every argument against their framework was interpreted by them so as to fit into it. And if this turned out to be difficult, then it was always possible to psychoanalyse or socioanalyse the arguer: criticism of Marxian ideas was due to class prejudice, criticism of Freudian ideas was due to repression, and criticism of Adlerian ideas was due to the urge to prove your superiority, an urge which was due to an attempt to compensate for a feeling of inferiority. - popper accepted a view similar to the myth fifty years ago - popper arrived at it himself seemingly? - once he accepted it, he then went beyond it - (my thoughts) It’s not clear how, but perhaps he went beyond it after considering the limitations that a self-protecting framework must have? - after WWI, he had heated discussions with people in closed frameworks - by people in closed frameworks he means Marxists, Freudians, and Adlerians - he found these discussions difficult - none of them could have their views changed - They interpreted arguments against their framework as fitting into it - If they couldn’t, they could use their theories to discredit the ideas of the arguer - (my thoughts on that) these frameworks included features that allowed them to ignore disagreement. They included epistemological features about how to judge ideas that weren’t to do with the content of the ideas of the arguer, but of alleged ulterior motives of the arguer, like class prejudice, repression, or superiority/inferiority complexes. These epistemological features can immunise their frameworks from much criticism paraphrase: _Popper once accepted at the myth of the framework but soon rejected it. In discussions with Marxists, Freudians, and Adlerians after WWI, Popper discovered that their frameworks protected them from having to change their minds._ ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2024, 4:28pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/825 "2024-12-19T16:28:38Z")
good. that’s a big list. new brainstorming prompt: differences between plants, animals and fungi one thing you might try is putting a ? on the end of ones where you’re unsure if they’re true. that might help you make more speculative guesses. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2024, 4:39pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/826 "2024-12-19T16:39:30Z")
I’ll paraphrase: _Another tendency which contributes to the myth of the framework is cultural relativism. Herodotus travelled, encountered strange customs, and learned to respect them. He even acquired the ability to see his own country as foreigners do. This is mostly good but can lead to thinking each culture has its own separate truth._ > [@LMD](#): > > It was a bit overwhelming having so many things. There were lots that seemed to be relevant. Yes, lots are relevant. My paraphrase definitely omits relevant information that could be useful in some context. But did I omit anything that strikes you as essential? I noticed that your paraphrase departed from the original text a lot more than you usually do, and did more rewriting. But you had difficulty with it. So I tried doing a more basic paraphrase myself. You’ll see I left in some of Popper’s wordings and tried to keep things simple and go through his text, in order, and just include enough to get the main point across. If you analyze my version, you may be able to kind of see how I made it and figure out the method enough to use it yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2024, 4:44pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/827 "2024-12-19T16:44:03Z")
Your paraphrase is OK. You kept it more simple and basic than with the previous one, and that worked fine. I had a comment on Popper’s story. It sounds like he had access to people who were willing to discuss repeatedly, but whose minds were difficult to change. So he could keep trying different arguments and questions, and get responses, but he wasn’t persuading them, and frameworks were a relevant factor. I think I have some experience with what Popper is talking about, but my recent experience is different than that. I make a lot more meta arguments (including ones that reframe debate more cooperatively as joint truth seeking) which are harder to dismiss with the tactics Popper was running into. I think one of the results is that fewer people want to discuss. When their regular tactics don’t work well, a common reaction is to avoid discussion. I suspect they only were open to debate when they felt reasonably confident about not losing and not having to change their minds. ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2024, 12:22am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/828 "2024-12-20T00:22:14Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > Yes, lots are relevant. My paraphrase definitely omits relevant information that could be useful in some context. But did I omit anything that strikes you as essential? No I don’t think so. A thing that I’m unsure about with your one (and mine) is if the tendency Popper means _is_ relativism, because he says that it’s _connected_ with relativism. That’s why mine says that it’s the tendency to conclude from culture clash a form of relativism. Maybe that doesn’t matter too much. I think figuring out that kind of thing was what was holding me up in that paragraph and made it take time. > [@Elliot](#): > > I noticed that your paraphrase departed from the original text a lot more than you usually do, and did more rewriting. But you had difficulty with it. So am I right that the paraphrase shows evidence that I understood it well (departed from the text more, more rewriting), and it was interesting to hear that I had difficulty with it? > [@Elliot](#): > > If you analyze my version, you may be able to kind of see how I made it and figure out the method enough to use it yourself. Yeah okay, I think I can see how you did that. That’s helpful. Maybe if I’m getting stuck, I’ll try something like that and see if it’s easier. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2024, 12:30am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/829 "2024-12-20T00:30:28Z")
> [@LMD](#): > > So am I right that the paraphrase shows evidence that I understood it well (departed from the text more, more rewriting), and it was interesting to hear that I had difficulty with it? No. I thought that paraphrase was worse than others. ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2024, 12:32am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/830 "2024-12-20T00:32:33Z")
oh cool, I’m glad I clarified haha ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2024, 3:08am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/831 "2024-12-20T03:08:19Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > new brainstorming prompt: differences between plants, animals and fungi plants have roots plants have leaves plants use photosynthesis plants are green mostly animals have brains some animals can have fur plants and fungi can’t move easily like animals fungi decompose plants and animals some animals have feet, eyes, ears, limbs fungi grows in the dark fungi have more gametes than plants and animals? (isogametes?) animals can take care of their young Humans are animals all are eaten by humans animals have fungi living on them (skin yeasts) They require different methods of preparing them for food? Some fungi is poisonous? Animals are mobile, plants and fungi grow in one spot I don’t know if there are fungi in the oceans? Surely they could, but I don’t know of any fungi and plants reproduce by making fruiting parts 10mins a lot less! It was harder for me ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2024, 5:03am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/832 "2024-12-20T05:03:02Z")
From _On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance_ by Karl Popper: > The problem which I wish to examine afresh in this lecture, and which I hope not only to examine but to solve, may perhaps be described as an aspect of the old quarrel between the British and the Continental schools of philosophy—the quarrel between the classical empiricism of Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Mill, and the classical rationalism or intellectualism of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. In this quarrel the British school insisted that the ultimate source of all knowledge was observation, while the Continental school insisted that it was the intellectual intuition of clear and distinct ideas. wish to examine a problem wish also to solve a problem problem may be described as an aspect of the debate between British classical empircism and Continental classical intellectualism British school insists the source of knowledge was observation Contental school insted that it was intellectual intution of clear and distinct ideas the problem is the source of knoweldge paraphrase: _In this Lecture, Popper wishes to examine and solve the old problem of the source of knowledge. Historically, the British school insisted the answer was observation, and the Continental school insisted that it was intellectual intuitition._ ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2024, 3:34pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/833 "2024-12-20T15:34:36Z")
that’s good. brainstorming prompt: pasta ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2024, 12:54am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/834 "2024-12-21T00:54:40Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > brainstorming prompt: pasta 10 minute brainstorm: bolognaise carbonara pesto napoli a al norma cheese basil oregano tomato eggplant egg cream cracked pepper olive oil spaghetti penne rigatoni angel hair fettucine chilli chilli oil chilli flakes salty water boiling water pasta water pasta bake lasagne multiple cheeses italian classic fresh herbs spinning fork fresh pasta or dry pasta handmade cheap meal storing sauce in the freezer for later comfort food lots of carbs easy to make kids like it growing your own basil making pesto pine nuts parmagiana pizza italian herbs national dish lots of variety tomatoes are a new world food pasta maker lady and the tramp eating spaghetti meatballs putting pasta in soup economical meal dry pasta stores for ages not healthy to eat all the time passata pasta recipes keeping some pasta water for the sauce serving pasta on a big plate to share egg pasta flying spaghetti monster colander fresh ingredients fancy restaurants checkered table cloths spinning your spaghetti onto your fork with a spoon dont get sauce on your clothes wear a napkin how long has pasta existed? did pasta exist before italians had tomatoes? ~1500AD? ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2024, 1:07am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/835 "2024-12-21T01:07:40Z")
Brainstorming prompt: how to make money investing ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2024, 1:27am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/836 "2024-12-21T01:27:34Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > Brainstorming prompt: how to make money investing 10 mins: read investing books buy bitcoin lol get low fee index fund learn things about the companies you’re invested in don’t just extrapolate from past data learn about the industry and competitors know about taxes and legal stuff talk to people who have made money investing be careful about all the scammers and fakers learn to be wise study philosophy so you can make good decisions learn about statistics learn that induction is false and lots of people might suggest you just look at past data learn about probablity and think about how it applies or not read about stock markets learn why stocks crash what is a bull market? what is a bear market? learn about gold learn about what money is study some economics be careful hedge your investments get a portfolio hire a secretary? fake it till you make it learn to see through peoples bullshit learn about foreign currencies learn about markets learn about capital goods study different investment strategies consider your investment goals how old are you and how risky should you be investing at your age get a knowledge of the things you’re investing in, and the market for them be able to quickly identify if the things are fake learn how to maintain the things yourself hedge against inflation with collectables, or other tangible things bitcoin is worth a lot more than it was learn about how crypto works first don’t buy into hype don’t follow herds think for yourself become smart understand that your money is important losing millions of dollars is bad be honest have good values ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2024, 1:50am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/837 "2024-12-21T01:50:12Z")
Excerpt from _Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge_ > Our problem belongs to the theory of knowledge, or to epistemology, reputed to be the most abstract and remote and altogether irrelevant region of pure philosophy. Hume, for example, one of the greatest thinkers in the field, predicted that, because of the remoteness and abstractness and practical irrelevance of some of his results, none of his readers would believe in them for more than an hour. problem belongs to epistemology implied: the problem is the source of knowledge epistemology is the theory of knowledge epistemology has reputation of the most abstract, remote, and irrelevant part of philosophy For that reason, Hume predicted none of his readers would believe his results for more than an hour hume was one of the greatest epistemologists paraphrase: _The problem of the source of knowledge belongs to the field of epistemology. Epistemology is believed to be the most abstract and practically irrelevant field of philosophy._ ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2024, 2:15am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/838 "2024-12-21T02:15:18Z")
Excerpt from _Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge_ > Russell’s views are of course disputed. Some recent philosophers have developed a doctrine of the essential impotence and practical irrelevance of all genuine philosophy, and thus, one can assume, of epistemology. Philosophy, they say, cannot by its very nature have any significant consequences, and so it can influence neither science nor politics. But I think that ideas are dangerous and powerful things, and that even philosophers have sometimes produced ideas. Indeed, I do not doubt that this new doctrine of the impotence of all philosophy is amply refuted by the facts. _The view that epistemology and philosophy is of practical importance is disputed. But Popper thinks ideas are dangerous and powerful, and that the doctrine that philosophy is impotent is false._ * * * Excerpt from _Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge_ > The situation is really very simple. The belief of a liberal—the belief in the possibility of a rule of law, of equal justice, of fundamental rights, and a free society—can easily survive the recognition that judges are not omniscient and may make mistakes about facts and that, in practice, absolute justice is never fully realized in any particular legal case. But the belief in the possibility of a rule of law, of justice, and of freedom, can hardly survive the acceptance of an epistemology which teaches that there are no objective facts; not merely in this particular case, but in any other case; and that the judge cannot have made a factual mistake because he can no more be wrong about the facts than he can be right. _The belief in the possibility of a liberal, lawful, free society can survive the recognition that our judges are fallible. But this belief cannot survive an epistemology which teaches that there is no truth for judges to be right or wrong about._ ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2024, 2:22am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/839 "2024-12-21T02:22:39Z")
Excerpt from _Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge_ > The great movement of liberation which started in the Renaissance and led through the many vicissitudes of the reformation and the religious and revolutionary wars to the free societies in which the English-speaking peoples are privileged to live, this movement was inspired throughout by an unparalleled epistemological optimism: by a most optimistic view of man’s power to discern truth and to acquire knowledge. There was a movement a movement of liberation this movement started in the renaissance this movement led through religious reformation and war it lead eventually to the free English speaking societies this movement was inspired throughout by an epistemological optimism which is, an optimistic view of man’s power to acquire knowledge _The liberating movement which started in the renaissance and led to the free English-speaking societies we have today, was inspired by an epistemological optimism regarding man’s capacity for knowledge._ ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2024, 5:07pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/840 "2024-12-21T17:07:52Z")
Brainstorming prompts: 1. How to make great pasta 2. Upsides of index funds 3. Downsides of index funds 4. Child wants to stay at a store longer but it’s closing time 5. Child wants to stay at a park longer than parent does 6. Solving global warming 7. Is global warming a real concern? 8. Upsides of plastics 9. Downsides of plastics 10. Upsides of pesticides 11. Downsides of pesticides 12. Critical Fallibilism epistemology Try 5min each, but you can go longer if you feel like it (e.g. more answers are flowing easily and you don’t want to stop in the middle, or you feel like you didn’t come up with enough yet and want to consider more). Feel free to spread these out over several days. They aren’t meant for one study session. When brainstorming pros and cons of something (or similar things like upsides and downsides), you can work on both lists at the same time, or work on them one at a time, or both. It can work well to do each list alone initially, then once it’s harder to add to each list you start working on both at the same time while thinking about the issue more deeply. As a loose rule of thumb, when doing them separately, it’s better to start with pros than cons. ---
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2024, 1:53am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/841 "2024-12-24T01:53:40Z")
How to make great pasta - 5 mins fresh ingredients patience imported italian passata deli proscuitto egg pasta pecorino romano use a large pot for boiling pasta if making bolognaise, cook meat seperately and render reduce sauce for two hours adding beef stock as you go use fresh basil, picked to serve find out what the best cheese is. Try some samples from the deli dont overcook the pasta same some salty pasta water for mixing in the sauce find a good olive oil. Buy a few different ones in small quantities to find your favourite find good recipes. Some italian towns have official recipes for the specialty dish mix olive oil with the pasta once it’s drained serve hot grate cheese directly on top * * * Child wants to stay at a store longer but it’s closing time - 5 mins try to explain that it’s closing make plans to come back soon tell them that the people that work they have to get home to their families see if you can browse things they have online when you get home ask them why they want to stay make sure you go to a store your kid might like with more time to spare, like not right by closing time. lie to your kid (that there is some danger and you have to leave) get angry at them put your foot down pick them up and carry them out raise your voice tell them you’ll punish them if they don’t do what you want Buy them something they like from the store if they’ll leave [Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933.md?page=41) [Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933.md?page=43)