This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://curi.us/2600--the-sovereign-child-contradicts-taking-children-seriously
2 Likes
This one also has a glitches âShow Full Postâ along with Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism and Prices, Decision Factors and <i>Time Will Run Back</i>.
Maybe itâs the italics thats breaking something? There are none in the title of the feminism post, but the first line has Italics. Idk.
lol, these people know nothing about TCS and do no research.
I am literally holding paper copies of all four of those books in one hand as I hit send on this post.
4 Likes
Also
Many parents believe that without restraint children would resort to a diet of chocolate and coke and never look at another vegetable again. Why? Do adults who have no one to monitor and regulate their food intakes routinely resort to irrational diets that might endanger their health? Sadly, some do. However the likelihood is that adults with poor food ideas about food, who struggle all their lives with their relationship to food did not have childhoods where they could freely choose the foods they liked without âgoodâ or âbadâ labels being placed on them.
Surely, though, we canât simply let out children eat anything? As in other areas, we should certainly be sharing our ideas with our children as trusted advisors, but, tentatively and without scare mongering or overstatement.
Health is obviously an important factor to take into consideration when we are choosing foods, and we do well as parents to share health related information about food in non-manipulative ways,
This is better than The Sovereign Child.
Also, in general, Jan Fortune-Woodâs books are more philosophical and theory-oriented than Stupple and Chipkinâs book.
2 Likes
So strange to write a whole book having no fucking idea about the ideas involved in it. Also your point about their child only being 6 is so true.
Is it like, they just wanted to write a book, without much regard for whether it was worth anything? Like just a hobby project for themself or something? I wonder if thatâs the kind of way some people think about writing books.
They care whether people perceive them as smart intellectuals. Lots of them want it to be their career, not a hobby (Stupple in particular is a doctor; I donât know if he wants to quit that job to be an intellectual or not). They made an Institute.
My basic take on those people is they left my community, and dislike me, because I have high standards. They donât know how to and are unwilling to learn a lot, and instead want to already be smart and rational, and already be good enough to be top, elite, intellectual thought leaders. They donât read much Popper or understand much about Popper either, but they try to present themselves as Popper experts. They wonât debate and donât want to deal with criticism about how they should study more or criticism that reveals their ignorance. They associate in a group where everyone flatters and talks up everyone else, for social climbing purposes, except unlike most such groups they also claim to be Popperians who are into criticism. Also Stupple and other leaders were unwilling to say or do anything against the harassment Iâve received from their community.
1 Like
Youâd think theyâd care whether the actual smart people perceived them as smart. Why want normal people to think youâre a smart intellectual, while the actual smart intellectuals think youâre stupid?
I didnât know Stupple was part of your community and left.
Right theyâre trying to impress their peers which also have low standards, and who also avoid giving feedback and criticism to each other. They are also harass or sanction the harassment of their greatest critic. Itâs no wonder they donât understand the ideas.
Assume they consider themselves actual smart people. Their standards probably also make a lot of people theyâre impressing count as actual smart people too.
I think youâre dismissing most professors and authors as ânormalâ and not actually smart? They arenât looking at the world that way.
I just wish people trying to be thought leaders would engage in debateâŚ
Stupple didnât post at my forums but he knows who I am and has friends like Chipkin who did post at my forums. They intentionally splintered a community that isnât big enough and theyâve never been willing to discuss/debate/explain why.
Good point.
I can see that they wouldnât look at the world that way because of their low standards.
I guess I do think most professors and authors arenât smart. Iâm thinking I should be more skeptical about that because I donât really know a lot about the world, and I myself have a lot to learn about being smart.
Yeah and itâd be fine to be writing books that were bad if you were also trying to debate and discuss with critics about them and trying to improve your writing.
Thatâs not what books are for. The concept of a âbookâ has a meaning and using books this way would confuse audiences and violate their reasonable expectations. Itâs OK to write this way. Blog posts would be a reasonable format for this type of writing.
1 Like
Good point. People expect if you write a book that youâve done a lot of that kind of work on figuring out the ideas already. Bookâs are considered more of an official statement on oneâs views.
Is she TCS related?
She was in the TCS community and wrote about TCS.
1 Like
Also that seems like a bad kind of thing in general, no? Like itâs harder to fix a bad habit instead of starting one. Seems like not a great idea to wait until something is a problem to address it, especially if itâs something you know could end up being a problem.
Is the popular opinion talking about guarantees? Maybe? I think most parents would just take it as something that just has a high chance of occurring.
~that makes sense. children donât know a lot of things. They may not share something thats âwrongâ with them because they have no frame of reference for whether its wrong or not.
Hmm. I wonder if he just read some random parts, found it convincing, and then proceeded to think he understood it well. He understood it well as permissive parenting instead of understanding it for what it actually(?) is.
Did the founders of TCS have experience parenting a child for the whole age range? Like did Fitz-Claridge write stuff after her kids turned 18 or?
! They helped promote it? Thatâs weird. I wonder if itâs something along the lines of a sunk cost. You mentioned
but I wonder if even after wanting to bury it (for whatever reasons) they still felt bad ruining a big(?) project and so they were glad to see someone interacting with it.
~kinda? I think itâs closer to most people have low standards for ideas. Or they are fine with an insufficient idea. I mean just off the top of my head there are books written that just strawman people. Itâs not the same as having no idea about the ideas involved but I think itâs similar.
mmm. are you saying its not worth anything? i more-or-less agree. though i havenât read it for myself, but based on this article from Elliot I doubt Iâm missing out on anything.
are you saying they should/would know its not worth anything? idk about that
I wonder if part of it is that they also want to get to a point where they stop having to learn. Like heâs a medical doctor (hopefully a good one, but probably not?). He had to learn a lot of stuff to get there and I think he wants to be done after that(also itâs debatable how much he actually learned ig).
I think Miss Rand commented before on how people want knowledge thatâs done and final that they donât have to keep putting effort into.
Do you think actual smart intellectuals think theyâre stupid? Elliot thinks their stupid (or, well, Iâm assuming that). But, uhh, outside of him who else are we talking about? Or are you talking about something along the lines of if a different smart intellectual came along they would think Stupple is bad?
~same one thing I thought of: I donât think most professors are as smart as they claim/are purported to be, but I do think they still are smarter than me in certain aspects and are generally kinda smart.
No. David Deutsch doesnât have children. Sarah Fitz-Claridge started writing about TCS when her children were quite young and stopped writing much around when her children hit their teens. I think thatâs bad.
Another way Stuppleâs book isnât TCS is it provides too much information about his children, like about their diet. TCS advocated much more privacy. Fitz-Claridge said basically that her own parenting outcomes were irrelevant to TCS theory and avoided sharing information about her children with the online community. Lots of people donât even realize who one of Fitz-Claridgeâs children is because they donât share a last name.