Hacker News Reader

Comment by thanhhaimai | Hacker News Reader

> but also need to test the rules and see if they are really as important as everyone says.

Thank you.

Then I don't quite agree with the article on this. I don't need to "test the rules" myself to see if they are ready as important as everyone says. I can observe.

For example: I don't need to drive without a seatbelt to "test" whether seatbelt is as important as everyone says. I can observe that people without seatbelt have worse outcomes from accidents.

I think this might also be related to whether the kid grow up with parents they can trust and are able to explain the reasons behind "rules" to them. I was fortunate that my parents always tried their best to explain why I should or should not do something. I questioned them a lot, but defaulted to "trust" when they didnt have time to explain.

View on HN

> For example: I don't need to drive without a seatbelt to "test" whether seatbelt is as important as everyone says.

There is a trivial objection to every ethical position. The parent commenter is not suggesting every rule needs to be tested. But we can imagine plenty of situations where a form of rebellion would be endorsed by most, or may at least be supposed to be constructive to one’s identity. For instance, rejecting one’s family’s religious practices. Preferring tinkering alone in a milieu that prefers more extraverted, social activities and might view the aforementioned as a concerning form of lonerism. Living, briefly, a nomadic lifestyle. Historically (and, unfortunately, still into the present in some places), being sociable with people of differing race was/is met with censure and even threat of violence. And so on. Certain forms of cultural transgression are imperative, in my opinion, for the advancement and development of society, culture, and (as a downstream effect), technology.

There are certainly advantages to a more conservative, traditionalist societal arrangement as well. It’s a matter of balance.

There’s a pretty good observation in the book “Iron John” that’s about how you have to take your freedom from your parents (in the myth, it’s something you steal) - if it’s given, there’s always the shadow of it being taken away again. If it’s something you’ve taken, it’s yours now.

Testing “seatbelts” doesn’t really take any freedom/adulthood for yourself.

Spending your earned money on something your parents don’t approve of, does.

But you wrote above:

> follow the definition of "good" from their parents and churches

And different churches in your community teach different, contradictory things. Not just in small details but in really big things.

And your two parents don't agree on everything, and your friends' parents have different views as well, sometimes dramatically so. And sometimes you raise their views make more sense than your own parents' in some areas.

So how are you going to figure out which things to follow and which things to ignore?

There's a lot you just have to test and figure it for yourself. Especially since people are born with very different temperaments, so the rules one person follows may be very different from another -- like whether they consider getting up extremely early to be virtuous, or bad for their health.

Some other "rules":

- you need to get a college degree if you want to get a good job.

- work hard and you will be rewarded by your efforts.

- you can be good at anything if you stick long enough with it.

Would you agree that there is no way to reliably "observe" if these rules are true?

There are simple rules which breaking doesn't matter much, but there are certainly rules that are worth questioning. Seatbelt rule is quite meaningless to question, but then there are all sorts of rules about substances for example which you are told not to consume. Alcohol as a teenager or drugs. We need rules around substance usage, but for example many of those substances can give you experiences where you learn about human nature and what you really are.

Even if they explain the reasons, doesn't mean the kid will listen; reason may not apply. May also depend on their personality, temprament, communication style, etc. You can try "analyzer" style communications with a "promoter" style teenager but they have tuned out after 10 seconds already and think you're a buzzkill, intentions aside.

"Fuck around and find out" is a great phrase to use in such cases.

How about the rules that you do not have an example to observe from? Someone had to test the rules for you to observe the test.

> I think this might also be related to whether the kid grow up with parents they can trust and are able to explain the reasons behind "rules" to them.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Even if a parent's advice is sound, a child may not trust the source for other reasons. If the parent's own behavior defies their advice, if the parent is overbearing, if the parent's expectations are unreasonable, if the parent never listens to the child... Shitty parents can make it extremely unpleasant to do what is right. And we haven't even gotten to actual trauma. People often have difficulty functioning in society when fear and anxiety are a part of their everyday life because their parents were abusive. And the thing is, traumatized people might really want to do the right thing, but they can't and they don't know why.

How about the rules that you do not have an example to observe from?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com