Hacker News Reader

Comment by guy98238710 | Hacker News Reader

Ironically, the book, including the cheesy title, fits in a range of parenting books telling parents how to arrange their children's lives, making children an object rather than the subject once again.

Psychologists (and related specialists) could use more humbleness given the sad state of the science of psychology. Parenting advice, especially one argued in such biased way, is inevitably crude. Parenting is more nuanced, kind of like a conversation, always taking different path, shaped by family circumstances and objectives of everyone involved and frequently taking unexpected turns.

View on HN

It is literally the job of parents to arrange their childrens' lives. For example parents have to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, entertainment, and emotional support to children. They also have to create a schedule to fit all that into each day, plus leave sufficient time for sleeping (kids need a lot of sleep).

The question is, how best to do all that?

You're right that parenting is difficult and nuanced. You're wrong to use that as an excuse to tune out experts who study child development for a living.

The difficulty and complexity of being a good parent is a reason to seek information and input, not reject it.

The question to ask is whether the book is just shaping your understanding of what the child tells you or whether you are now listening more to the book than to the child. The books I have seen all argue for their preferred theory of what's good for children. Preferences of children (whether expressed eloquently or through tantrums or just inferred by the parent) are never considered. This book seems to be no exception.

As the first line says, it's about giving children more sense of control over their lives. Not more control, but more sense of control - it's not about reality but about their perception of it.

That's one of the many nuances here. You have to think about other things. When is illusion of control going to be harmful? When is the illusion going to crack? When is the illusion going to stick and become reality? When is increased control equivalent to removal of boundaries? When does it turn into abdication of parental responsibility? When does it reach levels of neglect? When is withdrawal from child's life going to make the child feel deserted?

There is no way to resolve these ambiguities upfront. You have to listen and observe. That's why parenting resembles conversation that is unique for every parent-child relationship and that evolves over time.

Following advice in this book or any of the many similar books is going to result in crude, clumsy parenting. Particularly so when authors argue for a side in order to stand out or to keep the book focused. That's why these books feel so artificial and kind of extremist.

see _Parenting with Love and Logic_ by Jim Fay.

Relevant bit here: give kids choices, yes, but you (the parent) limit the selection set to things you can live with them choosing.

Sense of control and control are not mutually exclusive and can bias either way. In fact a major issue in U.S. society today is that adults who actually do have a lot of control over their own lives, don't have a sense of control, and it leads to depression and anxiety.

The article is about parents creating space for kids to actually have more control, which will over time improve their sense of control.

It's not about fooling or manipulating kids. That's a pretty crazy interpretation that makes me wonder if you read it the whole way through.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com