Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgabriel | Hacker News Reader

My least favorite pg essay. It's too easy to generalize about parenting, and so little of this essay applies to me.

1. Raising a kid in the city, and quite happily. 2. No prohibitions on swears in my house. Just at Grandma's, and only because it would offend her, not because swearing is inherently bad. 3. He goes to a school where they only teach you how to read, write, and do basic math. Everything else is a child-led research project. 4. We don't lie about turkeys. Turkeys are not very smart, and have no concept of "wanting to die." If he asked this question, I'd explore vegetarian options with him. 5. Pastafarians. He can make his own spiritual allegiences when he feels the desire to do so. 6. Drugs and sex haven't come up much, beyond the basic "where do babies come from" conversation. We've done that, he's satisfied for now.

On and on. I'm not the only parent like me, either. Be careful about generalizations.

View on HN

Lying to your kids is like the kind of intellectual fashion I wrote about in "What You Can't Say." No parent thinks they lie to their kids-- except of course in necessary or harmless ways-- just as no one thinks what they believe is an intellectual fashion. But in retrospect it turns out most parents do, just as in retrospect it turns out most people's beliefs are influenced by intellectual fashions.

So if one has a strong conviction that lying to their kids is not an issue, that's not necessarily the kind of evidence one can trust. Plenty of parents you'd consider to be lying outrageously to their kids also think that.

The examples you presented to illustrate your argument ring false in my experience, and the premise seems flawed as a result. They may seem correct to you, depending on how your circle of friends behave.

It might be more correct to say everybody lies outrageously to everybody else, and sometimes one person is a parent and one person is a child.

I agreed that the essay could use more examples. I understand that the examples might seem silly in 100 years (or even 10), but it would have benefited from things like "In 2008, many parents told their kids X"

Is that not implied? We can assume an author is writing about the present and recent past unless told otherwise told.

In the notes, he mentions concern for how the readers 100 years from now will view his essays.

Yes I saw that. But how does it follow that he has to point out "in the year 2008"? When not given a particular time period, I always assume an author's example is meant to refer to the present. (Maybe I am not understanding your point).

I agree about the author's time being the default context. I just suggested the specifics because pg was so concerned about timelessness.

I'm a parent of three children (girl, 6; two boys, 3 yrs and 9 mos), and your essay resonated very strongly with me. Thanks for a great piece of writing.

I've found that I've done a better job as a parent when I consciously thought about these things beforehand, so that I was prepared to discuss them with my kids when they came up (and they always seem to come up much, much earlier than I expect). For example, questions from my daughter about jail led to crime, which led to drug use, which led to recreational drug use. Fortunately I had thought about this one quite a bit, so I was able to give the carefully crafted answer that I had wanted to give. But I haven't always been so lucky, and sometimes the lies come streaming out.

Raising kids - especially more than one - is in some ways like an intense startup experience, where you're constantly trying to extinguish fires, and you're only partially prepared for any one of them. You just do the best you can with the amount of patience, knowledge and raw ability you have at the time, which is never perfect. It's difficult, and transformative, and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything.

As my father once said: “they can make you go to school but they can’t make you do anything there.” Lying to your kids is common but optional. At 28 I can't think of a single time my father ever lied to me and as far as I can tell he never lied to my 10 year younger sister. Granted plenty of other people lied to me, but he had no problem pointing out that religion was silly, drugs where fun and dangerous, and conformity was optional if you accept society’s response etc. Odd as it might seem his accurate responces where frequently less than useful such as trying to describe chemistry at the atomic level to a 3rd grader and recomending the joy of sex (a book) to a teenager but such is life.

PS: One extreme example was he was told to lie so he could get a clearance by the person giving the interview and he refused.

Well, he told you a lie: that religion was silly.

Religion can or cant't be the truth. Tell the kid god exits and you are lying(you don't know it) Tell him the contrary and you are lying(you don't know it).

Don't confuse the fact that both of you agree in something(which is normal between parents and son) with the fact this is the truth.

No, he didn't tell a lie. Religion is silly.

You don't have to "know" something is false to know if it's silly. Do I have a singing purple leprechaun on my desk? Well, think before you answer, Skepticism-Is-As-Bad-As-Faith; after all, you don't know whether or not I do!

So take a step back from your false equivalency and use the same common sense on this that you use every day in every other aspect of your life. If someone comes up to you with supernatural claims, every ounce of common sense and experience you possess should tell you that this person is probably saying something silly. And you shouldn't change your mind unless they actually manage to produce the kind of evidence that would change your mind if you were, say, sitting on a jury and contemplating a far-fetched alibi.

I'm aware that I lie to my kids, but sometimes it's appropriate for the child's development level. I said in another comment that "Animals fight, people hug" when we were watching Animal Planet. Now that's not true - people fight all the time and "hugging" - cooperating, loving, etc - is a conscious act that requires work and is relatively uncommon. The intent of the "lie" was to tell her that, as a person, she should not fight. I'll explain human nature and her responsibility to behave well despite the fact that others don't when she's older (like before she goes to Kindergarten)

Turkeys are not very smart, and have no concept of "wanting to die."

Turkeys are very smart birds and their behavior is very finely geared around not dying.

Exactly. There aren't suicidal turkeys; they get slaughtered and cleaned and cooked. Why is that so horrifying for a child?

I think children tend to project their own concept of being alive onto other creatures. Basically, they assume the turkey is, in some way, like them.

While I think a turkey clearly does not have the same understanding of mortality that we do, I also think that they clearly don't want to die. Basic survival is a common trait of any successful species. The concept of want is different, though, since they have a much more primitive type of consciousness.

Growing up in a farming community, death was common and not hidden from children. The more horrific thing for me as a kid was discovering:

"Today’s domesticated turkeys are anatomically manipulated to be so heavy and large breasted, because breast meat is the most desirable and therefore commands the best price, that they are now incapable of breeding naturally."

So, there are people who have to perform this artificially for the males and then for the females. In fact, since turkeys are now raised in mega-farms, there are people with this as their career.

Watch and enjoy:

http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,1838332278.aspx

Responding to half your post, there are cultures (such as farms) where death is dealt with more frankly, and it doesn't seem to cause harm to children outside of making them more practical.

I think the key is that it's the parents who are uncomfortable with death, since they don't have to deal with it on a daily basis, either.

One time I called my friend with some land in Texas, his 7 year old daughter picked up the phone. I asked "Can I speak with you Dad?", She said "sure he is feeding the chickens". I asked, "Do you name the chickens?". She replied "No, because we eat them, they taste good". Very innocent, cute response, from a very well adjusted kid.

My inlaws once raised a couple of turkeys. They did name them. Thanksgiving and Christmas. They tasted good.

Perhaps because children tend to assume animals are a lot smarter than they actually are (I remember that I used to), and that their experiences are more equivalent to human experiences.

I wonder whether this is natural, or whether it comes from the fact that children spend all their time watching movies and reading books about intelligent anthropomorphic animals.

For their own sake, don't let your kids be vegetarian until they're at least 16, that's the worst disservice you could ever do them. I speak as a vegetarian myself, but you've got to be pragmatic.

Your kids need animal protein right up until their brains are done developing. It doesn't have to be very much animal protein, as little as a teaspoon a day does the trick, but there is no artificial or vegetable substitute yet derived that will work.

Personally, I think either letting or forcing a child to become vegetarian borders very close on child abuse. You'd be actively and artificially limiting their chances in life.

The American Dietetic Association, at least, disagrees:

"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence."

http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933...

Can you at least offer a source for your shocking claims?

Erm, hardly shocking. It has been established since at least the 80s that vitamin B12 is essential for brain development, and any number of large scale developmental studies have been carried out to that effect.There are no non-animal sources for vitamin B12. If you find any doctor of medicine who will recommend a vegan or vegetarian diet to either a breast feeding mother or to a child, then they ought to be struck off.

Simply Googling for "vitamin B12 brain development" will return you any number of papers on the subject, but most of them are behind their respective journal's paywalls unfortunately. However, the fact their abstracts include works like "cerebral atrophy" might give you some idea of their content.

Unless you are a strict vegetarian (vegan), you can obtain B12 from eggs or dairy products. Most vegans are well aware of the danger of B12 deficiency, and either take supplements or eat foods fortified with B12. B12 supplements are inexpensive and widely available. So how exactly is B12 a serious problem for vegetarians?

There's also Marmite, which, according to wikipedia, is suitable for vegans (I'm a meat-eater though, so I have no idea really). I grew up eating practically nothing but Marmite sandwiches - it's awesome stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite

> vitamin B12

Cobalamin is added to any number of foods (usually in the form of cyanocobalamin), including bread, cereal, orange juice, soy milk, veggie burgers, soft drinks, and on and on. It is produced by bacteria.

I know multiple mothers who have breastfed while on vegan diets. It is trivial to get B-12, simply by taking a multivitamin, which they should do anyway regardless of diet (starting with prenatal preparation including folic acid supplementation).

I would suggest doing more research on the subject of veganism and discontinuation of spreading further misinformation.

Cite? I've never seen any evidence that kids need animal protein to develop. I was raised vegetarian from birth and have no mental or physical defects to speak of. I have siblings and cousins and friends that are the same.

Vitamin B12 is the only thing that can be a challenge to get from non-animal sources, but that's only a concern if you're vegan. The whole "vegetarians don't get enough protein" thing is an overblown myth.

Yes, that's the thing. There's literally millions of people in Africa who get little or no animal protein, and they grow up just fine. The point is that study after study shows that with just a tiny portion of animal protein, they end up a whole lot smarter.

I'm not trying to suggest you aren't yourself a smart person, just that simply because you can't see the ill effects your actions cause doesn't mean they don't exist.

Your use of "vegetarian" and "animal protein" are unconventional. "Vegetarian" generally refers to someone that does not eat meat but does eat eggs and dairy, so when you said "vegetarian kids need animal protein", it implies they need meat. But meat is not essential for development; B12 is, and can be got from milk or eggs.

It's true anyone raising their child vegan ought to be aware of B12 deficiency. Time was when B12 could be got from dirt on vegetables pulled from the ground, but nowadays we're pretty finicky about cleanliness.

> The point is that study after study shows that with just a tiny portion of animal protein, they end up a whole lot smarter.

You're confusing two separate issues. The key factor is that treating malnourishment of impoverished and starving African children is beneficial. This has nothing to do with whether they are fed concentrated protein from animals or plants.

Counterexample: A significant fraction of Indians are vegetarian. They seem to be doing ok in the brain development department.

Are there confounding factors? Sure... but calling it child abuse seems a bit much.

> Your kids need animal protein right up until their brains are done developing. It doesn't have to be very much animal protein, as little as a teaspoon a day does the trick

This is utter nonsense on multiple levels.

1. Biochemically it doesn't matter what the source of the amino acid is. You can supply all essential amino acids from combinations of any number of plant sources.

2. "Vegetarian" does not exclude animal sources, as it typically includes milk and eggs. Vegan does, but that doesn't matter anyway, as per #1.

3. "A teaspoon" -- where did you come up with that rule of thumb? This is obviously superstition.

4. Brains require fats (especially DHA and EPA) and glucose. The human brain is 60% fat. Glucose is the fuel. Omega-3 fatty acids (DHA and EPA) can be supplied directly through microalgae oil, or converted from ALA in flax, walnuts, and other sources.

5. Human breast milk is only 5%-10% protein (by calories), yet during breastfeeding is when a human grows proportionately the fastest.

Stop with your protein myth and ridiculous child abuse nonsense.

There is an exception to every rule. You can't cover every base in a short essay. I'm sure his next few paragraphs were going to make explicit his exclusion of the extremely progressive.

A couple questions regarding your points:

1) which city, and how urban? I keep trying to convince my wife that the city (Chicago in my case) is ok and I'm gathering data

3) that sounds like a great school - public or private? name? I'd love to find a school like that.

I live in Cambridge, MA. While it's not inner city, it's not the burbs, either. I have several parent friends who live in NYC, Austin, and DC, as well. Chicago sounds like a great city to raise a child. My son goes to a Montessori school, and it's perfect for him. He's already defining his own curriculum, and starting to work on being responsible for setting and accomplishing his own goals (he's 6). However, YMMV with Montessori programs. Some are much better than others.

I grew up in Chicago and raise 2 kids in Oak Park, which is to Chicago what Brooklyn is to Manhattan. Speaking of Brooklyn, one of my two business partners is going to be raising a kid there as well.

The problem with big cities and children is school systems; you can get around that by paying for explicit private schools, or the de facto private school systems you get in the near suburbs.

Congratulations. You're a very rare parent, in my experience.

The essay is based on PG's observations of what he believes to be the majority of families. Essay's targeted to the edge cases tend to have small audiences.

But generalizations are just that... general.

The essay doesn't apply to my parenting but I enjoyed reading it anyway because I know that it applies to many other parents. I could identify with aspects of it because I survived public schools.

You made the decisions to raise your child as you are for specific reasons. I can't imagine that this article doesn't touch onto some of the motivators behind your parenting style.

Essays must use generalizations. There are always exceptions to any possible example. However, you are probably reinforcing many, many other deep-seated cultural norms that were not used as examples. Some that may even drop out of favour in the future.

I'm glad there are more enlightened parents out there like you. I completely agreed with every point he made because that's how I was raised. It never occured to me that some parents might actually be honest with their kids.

My least favorite pg essay.

I agree; it's even worse than the one on philosophy.

Me too.

I use to like PG essays, I don't like this.

I don't remember being lied by my parent's. I used to ask my father a lot, and he as a scientist replied. Then I started reading books. They didn't hide anything.

I predict that you are in for some rough times when he gets a little older.

So is every parent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com