Schools used to hit people who got an answer wrong.

Hitting people for being wrong is very un-Popperian!

A) it doesn't help them create knowledge
B) mistakes are common (among everyone, adults too)
C) finding mistakes is good! they should celebrate. why connect it to pain?
D) they see the problem like this:

we KNOW the answer. the difficulty is how to suppress disagreement (which must be bad, because it's mistaken, b/c it contradicts the KNOWN TRUTH). in other words, we know what ideas should rule, and the only thing left is to enforce their rule.

of course Popper would prefer this problem: we have some ideas about the answer, and they may be mistaken, and by discussion with people who disagree, and culture clash, and self-reflection, and criticism, and by a serious effort, we may learn something about our mistakes, and come nearer to the truth.

Everyone knows a major goal of parenting is that children end up independent. TCS wants to have that goal in mind from the very start. In general, TCS is disposed to consider it good when people have control over their own lives.

Conventional parents think the way to make a child independent is to decide what the components of a person ready for independence are, make a list, and then instill each item on the list into the child, no matter what he thinks of them.

Conventional parents all defend this attitude, and everyones' right to parent this way, even though their lists of what makes a person ready for independence are very different. They disagree about what parents should do, but agree that each parent should decide for himself what's needed and do that.

This is indefensible to Popperians. We know that errors need finding and correcting, and devising a master plan, way in advance, and ignoring the child's ideas, is a recipe for mistakes not to get found or fixed. People will reply saying they do listen to their children, and take into account that feedback, and then make a final and fair decision themselves.

What's the difference between not listening to someone, and listening only to the parts you find agreeable? If the issue is changing your mind and finding ways you are mistaken, then there's no difference at all. Taking under advisement only the stuff you find reasonable is a recipe for not finding out about any of your mistakes. It will catch the very easy mistakes, like if someone points out you made a typo you'll fix it and thank them. But the hard mistakes to correct are the ones where you have a blindness, and don't see that you're wrong. In those cases, anything that contradicts you seems unreasonable, so only listening to "reasonable" stuff means never fixing those mistakes.

Mind-forg'd manacles are created by people. They are common. Blake's sensitivity to people being hurt is great. That people hurt each other, and their own children, is awful :(

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=172929

London
BY WILLIAM BLAKE

I wander thro' each charter'd street,
Near where the charter'd Thames does flow,
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infant's cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear.

How the Chimney-sweeper's cry
Every black'ning Church appalls;
And the hapless Soldier's sigh
Runs in blood down Palace walls.

But most thro' midnight streets I hear
How the youthful Harlot's curse
Blasts the new born Infant's tear,
And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse.

No.

Here is a theory of how kids are "spoiled":

1) Parents deny kids stuff the parents could easily provide.
2) Kids quite reasonably complain about this.
3) Parents feel guilty and eventually give in.
4) Parents don't know how to help kids, but do know they are messing up, so buy lots of stuff to try to make up for it.
5) Throughout it all, parents are on the neglectful side.
6) Otherwise, parents act normally.

TCS recommends doing none of these, so of course it doesn't spoil kids. There are other theories of how children are "spoiled", such as "not enough boundaries". That particular one is vague and incoherent. The theory behind it is something like, "If you get some things you want, you'll be really demanding and arrogant, so the solution is to make sure you rarely get anything you want, and then you'll be content". What?

The theory that not hurting kids spoils them, in particular, goes something like this: "Real life hurts kids. Not hurting them will give them unrealistic expectations. It creates an overly nice environment, and they get used to it, and then the real world comes along and they can't handle it."

The idea is to say to your kids, "You will be hurt later. You better get ready for it now. So just hold still while I hurt you." And parents wonder why kids don't listen!

TCS has a better attitude. Life can hurt us, but also we can try to live well and make not being hurt a goal we strive towards. This is known as "the pursuit of happiness" where you try not to be hurt all the time. The other attitude is like making kids sad all the time so when they are sad later they'll don't care anymore. That's not trying to pursue happiness; it's just giving up.

By the way, most objections to the idea of not hurting kids go something like this: if you don't hurt them, something bad will happen, which will hurt them and you.

In other words, they say "if you try a way of not hurting your kids, AND IT FAILS, that will be bad!" Well, duh. We know that. But that shouldn't stop us looking for ways of not hurting anyone that will actually work.

Here are some studies about how children are bad at making decisions:

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Social-sciences/Are-young-children-adaptive-decision-makers-A-study-of-age-differences-in-information-search-behavio.html

http://ideas.repec.org/a/jdm/journl/v2y2007ip225-233.html

I'm not sure what their purpose can be in a debate about TCS (where they were brought up). None of the children in the studies were raised in a TCS fashion.

People think if you did raise kids in a TCS way, it wouldn't change these things, because they are genetic. But how do they know that?

The reason they think it must be genetic is they think that's the only explanation. Their argument goes like this:

- my kid is like this
- i didn't do anything wrong
- therefore something outside of my control, like genes, must have done it
- and therefore changing things under my control, like how i parent, wouldn't work

That argument uncritically assumes that most parents don't make any mistakes. It assumes there is nothing they could do better.

TCS can point out a lot of things that they might be able to improve on. Would it work well? We have good reason to think it would, in theory. Why won't they try it? They are the ones saying interventions based on changing parenting behavior are powerless, so what harm could be done? Oh, yeah, interventions are only powerless to help, but can hurt! Why? Because they are already parenting perfectly, so any change must make things worse. It's so arrogant to think you couldn't do any better than you have done!

The fact is that very young children have already faced the following:

- gotten some bad advice from their parents
- seen their parents set a bad example about how to handle some situations
- seen their parents get angry
- been intentionally thwarted by their parents
- been made to cry by their parents
- not being allowed to make a lot of decisions in their life (how are they gonna improve without getting to practice? and why are they going to try to learn about decision making if they have no decisions to make?)
- being intentionally indoctrinated with some dogmas the parents have accepted uncritically (and if child resists accepting it, his parent gets angry and hurts him)

Parents do a lot of things that cause their children to be bad at making decisions. Then they use that badness to justify doing it more.

Hacker News doesn't like Taking Children Seriously (TCS). My thoughts follow quotes.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=416432

If you substitute in someone with the same level of rationality and decision making skills as a young child.. let's say.. a meth addict, does it [TCS] still work?

Logical appeals on a young child would work as well as on a dog.

How ignorant children are, and how unable to make decisions, and how to deal with that, are perfectly legitimate and interesting subjects. But comparing children to dogs and meth addicts is not a way of delving into them.

Parents are meant to make decisions for their children and children are meant to do things they don't want ... That people think otherwise scares the bejesus out of me, but perhaps explains why kids are so pampered and spoiled nowadays.

Wow, is that [TCS] creepy.

thanks qqq [aka curi]. thanks for inflicting yet another monster on society, who thinks the world needs to justify itself to her. Hopefully the creature's teenage years will be a punishment enough for you.

TCS is unnatural, scary, and creepy, they say. And causes children to become stereotypical "spoiled" kids. "Spoiled" kids are commonly created by conventional parenting. TCS is different. Why expect it to have the same kind of results as parenting within the conventional spectrum? And if it would have conventional results, why is it especially creepy or scary or weird or anything?

Notice the hatred. The main theme of my comments was that I didn't want anyone to be hurt. In return someone hopes that I be punished.

Dr. Foster: Would you please tell your son to stop?
Ned's Dad: We can't do it, man! That's discipline! That's like tellin' Gene Krupa not to go [starts banging on the desk] "boom boom bam bam bam, boom boom bam bam bam, boom boom boom bam ba ba ba ba, da boo boo tss!"
Ned's Dad: We don't believe in rules, like, we gave them up when we started livin' like freaky beatniks!
Dr. Foster: You don't believe in rules, yet you want to control Ned's anger.
Ned's Mom: Yeah. You gotta help us, Doc. We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

This person hasn't made any attempt to understand what TCS does advocate.

My daughter is 7 and she will take your eyes out before she lets you poke her with a needle --- and that's after the inevitable well-reasoned, polite, non-patronizing conversation about why vaccinations are important, which she of course understands and appreciates.

Based on the outcome, we can conclude the daughter did not gain the necessary knowledge of how to get through a vaccination from the conversation. That means either the conversation didn't contain the knowledge, or the daughter didn't understand it. Either he has made the mistake of thinking his daughter understood his explanations, when she didn't, or he has not given good enough explanations. So from his own story, we see the parent was wrong about something. Somehow he concludes that children are irrational and must be controlled by their parents who are better at life, and also that children finding vaccinations distressing could not be avoided.

Please stop guys.
- Paul Graham (site owner)

Apparently there's a limit to how much discussion is allowed. I think the limit only applies in cases where not everyone agrees. I think it's sad how pessimistic people are about creating agreement. It's not just children they think can't be persuaded of anything. It's also adult forum posters.

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/7mvms/israel_kills_hamas_leader_and_his_wife_children/

Israel killed a senior Hamas terrorist. Reddit is sad. Comments follow each quote:

"Is it an outrage if a Hamas suicide bomber kills 10-20 Jews in a restaurant or reception?"

No, because the Palestinian backlash is predictable and avoidable. What do you expect when you starve people, cage them in like animals, and deprive them of their land and natural resources? Any normal person would become violent under those circumstances. Israeli's backwards policy towards Palestine is what fuels Hamas and keeps them strong. So when a Hamas suicide bomber blows up an Israeli mosque I simply see that as a natural consequence of Israeli policy. I certainly don't blame the Palestinians for being as angry as they are; I would be too.

Do you also blame the lion when it is taunted by vistors and then one day gets lose and goes on a killing spree?

This guy says he would kill Jews too, and so would "any normal person". He says it's completely natural to kill Jews, and that being Jewish is equivalent to mercilessly taunting non-Jews, like poking a tiger with a sharp stick.

I don't think that if these guys were in Israeli territory they would be taking down entire apartment buildings for individual people. There is just no way.

The only reason they do it is because they consider all of lives of the people in Gaza to be worthless. They blame every single man, woman, and child for what is happening.

This guy says Israel takes no care to avoid killing Palestinians because it doesn't care about their lives at all. But this is demonstrably false. Israel is very careful with collateral damage. For example, sometimes lets important terrorists escape, which it could kill, because they sleep with their family that night. Israel waits and hopes for a chance to kill them with less human shields around. But even more importantly, if Israel didn't care about the lives of Palestinians, it could just kill them all. It has nukes. It has overwhelming air power. Israel could wipe out whatever it wanted to, but it doesn't. Consider the times Israel has sent in ground troops to clear terrorists out of an area. What for? Why not just bomb the hell out of the area? The only purpose to sending in ground troops, and risking their lives, is to reduce the collateral damage.

Are you fucking joking? Even soldiers have the right to return home, and not to expect that fact to be used as some pathetic excuse for killing their family and neighbours.

If the same thing happened to an Israeli it would be condemned as an atrocious act of terrorism.

This guy is commenting on how Israel gave a 30 minute warning before the strike, and the terrorist told everyone, including his family, "stay here, so if Israel kills me, you'll die too, and then the commenters on Reddit will scream about how evil Israel is killing innocent bystanders".

If Israel wants peace so bad, why do they keep settling Palestinian land? Why do they continue the blockade of Gaza? That is all Hamas wanted to continue the truce. Doesn't Israel realize that those moves are just aggrevating the situation? Why can't they see that killing people isn't the answer?

If "killing people isn't the answer" then why is he defending Hamas, which has a goal of killing Jews?

What is happening in the Gaza Strip should not be taken lightly. It should cause us to question what it really means to be human.

And this guy is wondering if Jews are humans.

The strategy the Israeli's are using bares resemblance to how the Nazi's enclosed the Warsaw Ghettos.

If anything, we can take that irony away from this situation.

And this one thinks the Jews are a lot like the Nazis.

Hey Israel, do you know what your bomb-hit score is called in Hamas?

Job opening and promotion.

Bomb and kill can't be the only solution.

This guy thinks Hamas is so powerful that bombs could never destroy them.

They killed a democratically elected official of a democratic country. Nice. How hypocritical is the US being?

This guy thinks if you were democratically elected that justifies being a terrorist and makes you immune from criticism.

Fucking Nazis.

This guy is hateful but not thoughtful.

This isn't WAR! THIS IS MURDER!

And this one too.

Feynman says a lot of people have very fragile knowledge, and gives a couple examples where they know the answer to a problem, but then you change the problem a little, and basically the same answer would work, but they don't realize it. they know it, but they don't know how to apply it very well, unless it's asked in exactly the same way as when they learned it.

This stood out to me especially because of the word 'fragile' applied to know. I've used that word too, but I've never heard it done anywhere else. My idea (which is probably due to David Deutsch or to Kolya Wolf) can be explained a couple different ways.

One manifestation is that if someone is really interested in something, when they learn it, and they think about it a lot, then they will understand it in depth, and from lots of different angles, and they will figure out how to use it in lots of different ways, and they will integrate it with all the other things they know, so it plays a useful role in their overall way of thinking about the world. That's knowledge that *isn't* fragile, it's robust. Towards the opposite end of the spectrum is when you learn something the day before a test, and just try to remember the exact question that is likely to be on the test, and the answer. If you learn it like that, you'll probably forget after a couple days, and you never learn how to apply the idea to other issues -- that's fragile knowledge. I call it 'fragile' because it breaks very easily. You just change the problem situation a little and suddenly it stops working. It's not robust.

One way fragile knowledge gets created is when people are forced to learn something. Maybe you can make them learn the specific answers to the exact questions you ask, if they are scared enough of displeasing you. But that's never going to make them think about it, on their own time, for fun, and integrate the ideas into their personality, and make it a part of how they see the world. Quite the opposite. They are going to have really bad feelings attached to it, and avoid it when they can, and not see any of the ways to apply it to more of life.

Another way fragile knowledge gets created is when people do work purely for the money. Then they solve the exact problem their employer wants solved, and that's it, and they don't think about how they could use the stuff they are doing in more ways, cause they only care about the money and not the knowledge.

Another idea is that this connects to structural epistemology, and different knowledge structures can be more or less fragile. Almost no one knows what structural epistemology is, except computer programmers, but they aren't philosophers, so they don't know what epistemology is, but they do understand the idea. So when I give examples of knowledge structure, I usually give programming examples, cause it's the only field where people know much about the difference between different ways of structuring the same knowledge, and discuss it all the time, and even write books about it. So let's say you want a program to add up 2+2 for you. Now one way you could do this is write a calculator program that can add up any numbers, and also multiply and do other operations. Then it can add up 2+2, but it's also robust, it can add up 3+3, and all sorts of other numbers. It has knowledge in it that lets it apply to lots of questions besides just 2+2. Now suppose you wrote this program:

print 2+2

It's a lot more fragile. When you want to add 3+3, you need to write a new program. This old one is no good. It can't solve any other problems except 2+2. It's not adaptable to other situations except the exact one its designed for. So it's just like studying only for the test tomorrow, and what you learn isn't adaptable to any other situations. Of course, this fragile program is really easy to write, so sometimes it's good enough. The point isn't the fragile way is always worse. But it's different, and it is *fragile*, and it's a good thing to be aware of. And for a lot of people, most of their knowledge of the world is fragile, and that's a big problem! Some people never create much robust knowledge, and that's sad.