Hacker News Reader

Comment by watwut | Hacker News Reader

A kid that believes that he is inherently naughty wont even try nor has reason to try to behave itself. It is not even actionable command. Especially when it comes to little ones, telling them what they should do and then insisting on it work waaay better then any amount of hurting them (whether physically or when you try to make them feel bad).

The fact is, the spoiled generation has really lower criminality rates, violence rates, takes less drugs then supposedly better behaved predecessors. People love to compare worst students now with best students of their generation or with their idealized idea of how great they themselves were - ignoring huge amount of people who dropped out of the school knowing pretty much nothing and that was it. Meanwhile, current best students are actually pretty good.

It is not all down to parenting changes only, but given better objective results the nostalgia for good old times is not really fact based.

View on HN

From what I heard (based on recent research perhaps?) when it's about ability, you should praise what the kid does and not what they are, but when it's about morality, you should praise what they are, not what they do. If they're being good, that is. If they see themselves as a good person, they're more likely to be good. But if they see themselves as smart, they're less likely to work to accomplish anything, because it should be easy for them.

"A kid that believes that he is inherently naughty"

Occasional negative feedback doesn't create an inherent self-image.

"It is not even actionable command"

These are children, not puppies; children are perfectly capable of associating being called "naughty" with specific behavior.

You have very extreme views regarding children.

Negative feedback is much larger category then just telling someone "you are naughty". There was not mention of occasional in op post either. Most troublemakers are not making trouble occasionally - the kids who are real problem do unwanted things often.

"These are children, not puppies; children are perfectly capable of associating being called "naughty" with specific behavior."

Their implication about specific behavior being often "playing in sight" or "I wont please teacher so I will make myself funny so other kids like me at least". Or the implication does not matter, because behavior was down to impulsive or unable to control emotions (I am frustrated I act out so it gives me attention and it is already reflex at this point).

"You have very extreme views regarding children."

Nice try.

If you think that's extreme I've got some Facebook Mommies groups for you to join.

> A kid that believes that he is inherently naughty wont even try nor has reason to try to behave itself

How did you make the jump from telling a kid they're being/acting naughty to a kid being inherently naughty?

Quoting comment I replied to: "Tell them they're naughy when they behave naughtily".

Perhaps better English might be "Tell them they're being naughty when they behave naughtily". That's the idea, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

Any source for your very strong assertions that spoiled children have lower criminality rates, violence rates and take less drugs?

I meant "current generation which people consider spoiled".

But, overall upper and middle class kids who are on average more likely to be spoiled have better results then lower classes who are raised to be tougher if they are raised.

Still I don't see any source. Your conclusion has no value given that there are many more important factors influencing the differences in criminal rates, etc. between middle class kids and lower classes kids compared to spoiling. The education level of the parents is the first thing that comes to mind for example. Ergo, unless you link some proper study that demonstrate that correlation, I don't think that you can write such unsubstantiated strong assertions to validate your theory.

This was my conclusion: "It is not all down to parenting changes only, but given better objective results the nostalgia for good old times is not really fact based." Not a single part of my comment compared spoiled kid with kid of same circumstances who was less spoiled.

If you are argue that current children needs to be insulted etc more because that is how it was done in the past, then bringing in measurable differences between cohorts is perfectly valid argument. There is nothing measurable to support that argument either. The past was not perfect and argument by idealized nostalgia is not facts based.

As much as it feels good to imagine how you got back to that kid and how that kid would behave better, it is as much fantasy as thinking that all behavioral problems can be solved by hugs. I will make one more unsupported claim however: insulting children is and was not about making them behave better - it was about making educator feel better.

You are not bringing any whatsoever proof of the better objective results that are caused by spoiling children. Intuitively I would say that spoiling children is a negative factor and probably it is more true than your assertion.

You are seriously arguing against your own imagination. It is kinda like strawman, except you also lie about what I said.

Why should I defend the point I never made?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com