Hacker News Reader

Comment by twiss | Hacker News Reader

That's cruel. His only problem with being back in America was:

“There, I could always take a walk to my friends’ houses. Here we have to drive. The only really social time is at school or on my phone or video games or Xbox. That’s where I talk to my friends the most. Back there, I could see them every day, but here I can’t.”

And instead of trying to solve that problem (make a concerted effort to drive him to his friends every day, or give him a bike, or give him money for a taxi, or…) they punished him with Pavlov training.

View on HN

And there's things like this too: 'The kids had mixed reactions. Shep told his Mom the family architects made him nervous but his 12-year-old brother was probably the least accepting of the project.

One afternoon, not long after the family architects arrived, he grabbed a footstool and put his face right up to one of the Nest Cams.

“Hey, buttholes!” he said. “Why don’t you leave us alone?”

At first, nothing happened. Then there was a crackle of static, followed by a voice on the other end. “That’s a strike,” it said.'

> At first, nothing happened. Then there was a crackle of static, followed by a voice on the other end. “That’s a strike,” it said.'

This line could be straight from '1984'.

I think had a book been written where the parents paid to have this level of monitoring and treatment of their family, it would've been seen as too implausible.

This whole article felt weird, when I read:

> She discovered her son in his closet, playing on an old, broken Xbox he’d restored himself

I'd personally want to congratulate the kid.

My mother thought she could confiscate the power cord to my computer to stop me using it in the middle of the night. Obviously power cords are cheap and plentiful.

Heh, my dad took the whole computer away from me and put it in his room. This did not stop me from removing the motherboard, hard drive, video and sound card, and taking them to my friends house in my backpack for a LAN party. Spare monitor and power supply I borrowed from my friend got me up and running.

I especially liked the shot they took at the kids about being "negotiators," as though the ability to compromise rationally with authority figures is some sort of behavioral issue and not, you know, life.

When I wanted toys, I did chores. Later when I wanted spending money, I did chores, helped out around the house, mowed lawns, and eventually got a job. That is not negotiating, that's just being a productive member of a society.

Seems like this company is specializing in creating the same authority-fearing, tough-as-nails people who are being put out of work in the coal mines and have an uphill battle learning to do creative and intellectual work because they had all of their brains beat out of them by an education and parenting system designed to create drones, not problem solvers. Fucking tragic.

I was thinking the same thing, "Oh no! My child is learning how to negotiate instead of blindly following authority, the horror!"

What's even sadder to me though, is that blindly following authority does work extremely well for following academic paths, and probably most corporate paths. While negotiating and actual critical thinking (questioning authority) will only get you into trouble / derailed.

So this program does work to help these kids academically. Because academic success is almost entirely based on submission to authority and doing structured tasks without questioning much.

I think you have extrapolated too much about this, they were being overly polite I think when they called it negotiation.

When you are being issued a traffic ticket for parking in a way that is clearly indicated as wrong then you don't "negotiate" with the traffic warden; it is not their call and in fact you are just bitching at them and causing a scene. That traffic warden works for all of us to manage parking and traffic flow and is doing their job as directed. If you don't believe that the rule you have broken is correct then you should challenge the rule, in a forum where the rule was created (the city council, the local media, or whatever) or if you don't think you have broken it then challenge the penalty in court please and let the traffic warden get on with their job.

What this article is saying, is that this argumentative behaviour is undesirable. There was a lot they didn't mention, such as what a "strike" was, or whether there was any opportunity to have discussions about the rules which were broken. This kind of behaviour modification will not work unless there is though, and I understand that that should be in a separate context, away from the situation which caused the strike to be issued.

You can negotiate politely in that scenario and the warden does have discretion. I have gotten out of tickets that way when there were mitigating circumstances, but I was clear to say that I understood if they still had to give me a ticket.

People yelling at traffic cops aren't really negotiating, they are just releasing anger.

    > I especially liked the shot they took at the kids about being
    > "negotiators," as though the ability to compromise rationally with
    > authority figures is some sort of behavioral issue and not, you know,
    > life.

One of my kids is a born haggler. She will try to maximize her personal benefit in every interaction with every human, even at that human's expense. Conversations with her like this are typical:

Her: Can I have some tablet time before bed?

Me: It's getting late, but fine. I have stuff I need to get done after you go to bed. Five minutes.

Me: Alright, it's bedtime.

Her: Five more minutes?

Me: No, now.

Her: That's not fair!

Me: You agreed to five minutes. That was five minutes ago.

Her: I want some time to read now.

Adversarial negotiation is one way that humans interact, but it's not a particularly common one, and is rarely the best way to work together with someone else. Most interactions in life not zero-sum, and most people should not be treated like resources to maximize your exploitation of. Only in some sort of Randian libertarian hellhole would an interaction like this be acceptable:

Husband: Could you please pass the butter, dear?

Wife: Sure thing honey. That'll be $0.57 for the butter and $0.13 for the labor.

With a kid like mine that naturally goes into zero-sum mode, it is very important for me and my wife to train her to not treat people like that. Part of that is encouraging her to use empathy, but also a big part of it is knowing when to recognize when negotiation is not appropriate. Interacting with an authority is a bad time to start haggling, and authority figures are a part of life. If you get pulled over for a ticket, things usually don't go well if you tell the cop, "No, $200 is too much for the fine. I'll accept $50."

And the initial, tone-deaf response of parading him around in front of therapist's for "internet addiction". Seriously?

Not a rare kind of doctor shopping among those who can afford it.

But that's the whole problem, isn't it? The parents enjoy a lifestyle and a tax bracket where inconvenience is impermissible and unacceptable. The child has become inconvenient.

ETA: I had to stop reading before I finished the article, because it put me back in a place where I do not want to be. Still sort of there at the moment, but so it goes; I'm sure I'll be fine again tomorrow. Anyway, looking again just now to see how the author chose to conclude, I happened across this, a few paragraphs from the end, which I excerpt here without further comment:

At their son’s moment of crisis, why not start there, changing the environment rather than the kid?

She and Jason exchanged a look. “That’s just not possible,” Elizabeth said.

> But that's the whole problem, isn't it? The parents enjoy a lifestyle and a tax bracket where inconvenience is impermissible and unacceptable. The child has become inconvenient.

You know the sick part of this is that the wife and I discussed kids and we both decided that we were too involved with ourselves and our hobbies to properly devote time to a child. Yeah, we like our video games and our space, and we enjoy our time together so a kid really doesn't work well for us. You can call it superficial if you want, I wouldn't really disagree.

To say that these people just went and had kids, likely because that's what they were told by society what to do, means that these kids have now been sentenced to a life where they are an inconvenience and a burden, and there is no way they're not aware of this, which to me is way more fucking sick than not having kids because you don't want to share your XBox.

And their approach is: "Well, let's just throw more money at the problem, so long as you don't expect me to change the lifestyle to which I've grown accustomed."

There's nothing "sick" or bad about not having kids if you don't want to have kids. There's a really awful way of thinking that having children is the default option, and not having them is something you need to explain.

Your explanation is the perfect reasoning, even though lots of people won't accept it. Having children when you don't want to have children dooms everyone to a singular outcome: you will resent your children. If you don't want something, and then you force it on yourself, you won't be able to interact with it in any way other than "I wish this didn't happen".

Oh no I wasn't saying our reasoning was sick, I meant the fact that they wouldn't/couldn't be honest with themselves and just say "we really don't want to have kids" and then put said kids in this situation where their "bad behavior" is "inconvenient" is sick.

Sorry if I mixed you up.

ah, makes sense.

As a father of three, I applaud your decision. I'm sure you don't need my validation, but too often I feel like people with kids pressure others to have them so I'm giving it anyway. I very much wanted kids and there are still times I had to tell myself it will be worth it. Just to be clear, I have no regrets.

In my eyes anyone who figures out that they aren't ready for or just don't want kids before they have them is very wise.

I don't need it, but I do appreciate it. :) And yeah, we're still kids ourselves, I can't picture myself a dad, heh. But who knows what life will bring down the track a few years.

>You can call it superficial if you want, I wouldn't really disagree.

No. Please disagree, and strenuously. This might help others realize that it should be an informed choice, if only for the kid's sake. Nearly half the pregnancies in the US are unplanned. [1]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/health/unintended-pregnancy-ra...

It's not impossible that that cause only became clear to him and everyone around him over the course of therapy.

[playing devils advocate]

I thought that little quote was the most important part of the article, it's really a shame it's buried at the bottom. Especially with all the activities outlined in this kid's life. Is it any wonder he started acting out?

Very important reading: https://www.amazon.com/Price-Privilege-Advantage-Generation-...

>And instead of trying to solve that problem (make a concerted effort to drive him to his friends every day, or give him a bike, or give him money for a taxi, or…) they punished him with Pavlov training.

Or how about letting him do what he wanted in the first place... stay in England. That country is (in)famous for its boarding schools. If they could afford the 6-figure-invoice to have strangers discipline their children via webcam, they could afford to let Shep stay at a top-quality boarding school in London.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com