When valid reasons are given. Not when OpenAI's legal enemy tries to scare people by claiming adults aren't responsible for themselves, including their own use of computers.
I mean we could also allow companies to helicopter-drop crack cocaine in the streets. The big tech companies have been pretending their products aren't addictive for decades and it's become a farce. We regulate drugs because they cause a lot of individual and societal harm. I think at this point its very obvious that social media + chatbots have the same capacity for harm.
This is ridiculous. The NYT, who is a huge legal enemy of OpenAI, publishes an article that uses scare tactics, to manipulate public opinion against OpenAI, by basically accusing them that "their software is unsafe for people with mental issues, or children", which is a bonkers ridiculous accusation given that ChatGPT users are adults that need to take ownership of their own use of the internet.
What's the difference than an adult becoming affected by some subreddit, or even the "dark web", or 4chan forum, etc.
I think NYT would also (and almost certainly has) written unfavorable pieces about unfettered forums like 4chan as well.
But ad hominem aside, the evidence is both ample and mounting that OpenAI's software is indeed unsafe for people with mental health issues and children. So it's not like their claim is inaccurate.
Now you could argue, as you suggest, that we are all accountable for our actions. Which presumably is the argument for legalizing heroine / cocaine / meth.
> Now you could argue, as you suggest, that we are all accountable for our actions. Which presumably is the argument for legalizing heroine / cocaine / meth.
That's not the only argument. The war on drugs is an expensive failure. We could instead provide clean, regulated drugs that are safer than whatever unknown chemical salad is coming from black market dealers. This would put a massive dent in the gang and cartel business, which would improve safety beyond the drugs themselves. Then use the billions of dollars to help people.
This is such a wild take. And not in a good way. These LLMs are known to cause psychosis and to act as a form of constant re-enforcement to the ideas and delusions of people. If the NYT posts this and it happens to hurt OAI, good -- these companies should actually focus on the harms they cause to their customers. Their profits are a lot less important than the people who use their products. Or that's how it should be, anyway. Bean counters will happily tell you the opposite.
The legal accusations from the whistleblower smell like a disgruntled worker blackmailing a company. No human skulls were fractured. No one was injured.
A robot's maximum strength was tested, and people got scared.
I'd like to dedicate this article to all the fake repos in Github, which are just marketing codebases for proprietary, cloud-based subscription services.
The biggest misunderstanding I hear year-over-year is homeschoolers are "not exposed to the real world". Isolation exists for some, but my extensive interaction with homeschoolers is they are immersed in healthy communities, hand-picked by parents to keep away problem children. Who would plant a flower next to a sick or hostile one? Parents of healthy children should give 0 s*ts of societal/political pressure against this concept. Your kids are a bad influence for whatever reason? Not my problem to fix.
Homeschoolers are some of the most resilient and well-behaved people I know.
Modern academic life is only well suited to a small percent of the population. Those children who are truly happy and excelling in that setting.
So much time and resources, to produce what exactly? A piece of paper and fancy picture to stare at? Forced mass education was a good idea for developing societies, but personalized education has been possible for at least a decade now, at a fraction of the cost.
And to add insult to injury, there's an increasing torrent of deranged ideologies teachers and professors share with students.
* It's fascinating to watch the points on my comment go up and down a ton. Very controversial issue. I believe it highlights pressure from social and political structures in society, and/or personal experiences. They vary so much.
My general experience is that homeschool children have self esteem and confidence issues precisely because they've been around 'hand picked' people... forever.
They've never experienced assholes, or people who think their personality is grating, or whatever. Thick skin needs to be built up, to a degree. I'm not saying bullying is good, but being exposed to the unwashed masses definitely can be.
I watched my kids becoming a median of their classmates. After changing to a private school it was noticeable after a month - different lexicon, mimics, attitude.
It's not thick skin they are developing around assholes, it's them incorporating that behavior to some degree. There was nothing I could do to change that - talks, good example, nothing worked, only surrounding change.
And I grew up among median kids till I was 19 and never did adjust to the median (neither did my group of friends foinf to the same school). My younger brother however did.
There are kids who will have the tendency to adjust to others and there are kids who don't. This has to do with the self-confidence they bring with them before they enter their first day of school, friends they have/had outside school and it is not necessarily a thing a parent can always control in a predictable manner.
For all we know in your case it could even be that your kid learned they have to follow the others in private school and then applied that lesson in the next one. What I am saying here is that having learned the lesson "you need to adjust to your peers" is the problem, not that the peers are the "wrong" ones.
I mean… the issue is you have incredibly well educated kids that have an awkward time dealing with assholes.
Given the state of our education system, that seems like an obviously worthwhile trade off. Especially for parents in underperforming school districts and even entire regions.
I think this is analogous to diseases and vaccines. You don't immunize a child by exposing it to the pathogen, but to a modified version of it that poses no threat to their health, but still allows their immune system to recognize and produce anti bodies.
The same applies to teaching "street smarts" to kids. You don't do it by throwing them in a hostile environment where they'll be prey to hostile people without having any defenses built up first.
> Your kids are a bad influence for whatever reason? Not my problem to fix.
Not your problem to fix for sure - but it is your problem to equip your child to comfortably weather. There are bad influences out in the world and they generally have outsized effects on their social and professional scenes. In fact, the kind of curated, limited community you're advocating for is one where bad influences thrive.
> So much time and resources, to produce what exactly? A piece of paper and fancy picture to stare at?
I certainly agree the degree is whatever - but I think you're really under-valuing the social-gauntlet aspect of school. You will have classmates who kind of (or really) suck. You will need to do your work anyway. You will be incentivized to learn perseverance and a self-centered locus of control. These are valuable skills that only come from actual exposure to bad influences.
Someone who's perfect in perfect conditions is going to struggle because the world is not perfect. The aims you highlight here make me think less of homeschooling than I did before.
The problem is that what constitutes “healthy” varies so greatly between individuals (especially these days) that it barely carries any objective meaning, and the odds are heavily against any one person’s definition being correct.
If I put myself in the shoes of a parent, I wouldn’t trust myself on the matter enough that I’d feel good shaping my childrens’ entire world to match it. It’s such a wildly difficult thing to get right, and I’d rather they get a glimpse of the world through wide variety of viewpoints and hope they’ll use the values I’ve instilled in them to construct their own view.
> hand-picked by parents to keep away problem children
Unless you can magically guarantee (or have enough money to fund their whole life) your children will never have to interact with "problem" people, they will need to learn to deal with those people one way or another. And it's better to do so in a low-stakes situation like school.
Childhood and youth are anything but “low‐stakes.” The social experiences I faced in public school were far worse than even the worst parts of my adult life. The direction I was headed was one of dark cynicism and misanthropy thanks to the bullying I faced and the lack of care from the adults in the system. When I switched to homeschooling, I began interacting with rational adults (my parents’ friends) and in turn learned what functioning human relationships look like. My ability to weather the difficult storms of adulthood in a healthy way came from the social growth I gained through homeschooling, not the regressive “socialization” that public school inflicted on me.
I had exactly the same experience. I was in a public school full of assholes and teachers that couldn't care less about any bullying taking place. Those few years were probably the worse years of my life.
I grew significantly and became a different person when I was moved to a different school.
I still think it taught me a lot about the world and how people really are. I really lost a lot of faith in humanity in those few years and still see the world as cynical in which all people are in it for themselves.
Did it make me stronger? Maybe. But also I wish I could see the world more positively as a lot of people that have been shielded from those experiences seem to do.
On the opposite end of the spectrum I grew up near a Mormon family whom exclusively homeschooled their children. Their 'homeschooling' mostly consisted of using the older children to assist and babysit the younger children as they had about ten or so children, and naturally could not equally provide schooling for such a wide range of needs.
They were a nice family, but when I was in community college I had a chance to talk with one of the eldest who was there getting her GED. Last I recall, she held some resentment towards her parents because she was held back fairly significantly by her upbringing. Well, except for the fact that they were wealthy which helps smooth some of the problems.
The trouble I have with this line of argument is that, at least for male children, the skills one learns for dealing with 'problem' people in school (IE skills one would learn in an MMA gym) are not relevant for dealing with problem people afterwards.
Children's world view is shaped early on. They shouldn't have to suffer just because poor, violent, should-have-been-aborteds are legally required to go to public schools. Children should experience carefree happiness at least once, in their formative years so they know happiness is possible.
They can be avoided later in life just like they can be avoided in public schools. Freedom to choose was established 50 years ago, sorry if you dislike it.
No need for the apology, as I never said I disliked anything and you certainly don't seem sorry.
I'm not sure how you are avoiding all of the people working at or frequenting coffee shops, the DMV, car mechanics, the grocery store, airports, or any other scary place where you might be forced to interact with real people. Not to mention co-workers, school parents, sports parents, family members, in-laws, and more whom you may have to spend your valuable time around.
> homeschoolers are "not exposed to the real world". Isolation exists for some, but my extensive interaction with homeschoolers is they are immersed in healthy communities, hand-picked by parents to keep away problem children. Who would plant a flower next to a sick or hostile one?
...a healthy community hand-picked by parents is not "the real world" though, is it?
I think your view is a very black and white one. Kids in public school are exposed to society at large, in both good and bad ways. My kids are in class with others of different cultures and lived experience and I believe that enriches their lives. Despite, yes, there being some problematic kids in there.
The sad reality of parenting is that you're never going to be able to hand-pick your child's experience all the way through life. Sooner or later they're going to be exposed to the "hostile flowers" you describe. Personally I think learning to be around those people and still thrive is a part of childhood that prepares you well for adulthood. It may be more valuable than some of the academic work kids do.
I can not conceive of a worse way to teach a kid how to behave in Adult social settings than to throw them into a group of other kids who have just as little experience as they do and then expect the group to "figure it out". This is not to say that there aren't some homeschooling parents who practice a form of extreme isolation which produces what I would regard as an equally bad outcome as public school. But by the numbers from people who have studied this the evidence indicates homeschooling produces the best outcomes for social adjustment in Adulthood.
Probably because well run homeschooling groups tend to have high parental involvement which means the child learns how to socialize not from other children but from watching how the adults they are around handle interactions.
> I can not conceive of a worse way to teach a kid how to behave in Adult social settings than to throw them into a group of other kids who have just as little experience as they do and then expect the group to "figure it out".
You are aware of teachers, yes?
> Probably because well run homeschooling groups tend to have high parental involvement
Everything I've read shows that putting absolutely all else aside, parental involvement is key to a child's success. So perhaps the reason your by the numbers evidence shows home schooling to be better is simply because it's a self-selecting group of involved parents.
Counterpoint from my own experience having been previously homeschooled all the way to college: My parents went the extra mile to ensure I was constantly immersed in large group settings with other homeschoolers. Field trips, co-op classes, sports, and general high-quality social time. There were of course bad eggs as in any group setting, but with an important difference: if it ever got bad, it was possible to leave, and we did on occasion. In my mind, that's far more in keeping with the "real world" than the seeming entrapment of public schooling that offers little recourse for when social experiences sour. In the real world, you have the freedom to leave a toxic job or social group far more so than public school.
In addition to peer socialization and mobility, the flexibility in scheduling allowed me to work a day job through my high school years, exposing me to yet more real-world experience. The constant interaction with adults and folks from other walks of life was a huge boon that allowed me to function as a well-adjusted adult right out of the gate. The high-school drama that people suffer and then bring with them into adulthood is very disappointing and seemingly unnecessary.
^^^ That's my experience interacting with healthily homeschooled children-now-adults. On average they seemed to have so much less trauma than me and my peers, and less "subconscious" issues to deal as adults.
"..a healthy community hand-picked by parents is not "the real world" though, is it?"
School isn't their only exposure to life. You will get exposure to other people and non-healthy people outside of school.
"Kids in public school are exposed to society at large, in both good and bad ways. My kids are in class with others of different cultures and lived experience and I believe that enriches their lives. Despite, yes, there being some problematic kids in th"
When I was a kid, I was exposed to kids that should have been in prison..and many of them ended up there. My life probably would have been better if they weren't there.
"My kids are in class with others of different cultures and lived experience and I believe that enriches their lives. Despite, yes, there being some problematic kids in there."
This can still be done with home schooling.
"The sad reality of parenting is that you're never going to be able to hand-pick your child's experience all the way through life. Sooner or later they're going to be exposed to the "hostile flowers" you describe."
I disagree. If someone is hostile and aggressive all the time, I wouldn't be around them as an adult. I hand pick my friends, and you probably do too. I also still get exposed to the assholes of the world.
"Personally I think learning to be around those people and still thrive is a part of childhood that prepares you well for adulthood. It may be more valuable than some of the academic work kids do."
If you are at work and someone is sexually harassing all of the women there or generally causing issues for everyone around them (preventing most other people from getting their work done). Do you think they should stay, so everyone can learn to be around them?
You seem to think everyone is a reasonable person that might just have a few issues. This is far from the truth and many times, public schools will just keep these kids there, preventing everyone around them from learning.
> ...a healthy community hand-picked by parents is not "the real world" though, is it?
It very much is. No where else in life are people forced to mixed with the general unfiltered public. "The real world" is highly filtered social circles and freedom of association. The idea that it's somehow an automatic good to force healthy kids to mix with everyone who happens to show up, regardless of whether they have severe behavioral or social issues, is pretty questionable.
> My kids are in class with others of different cultures and lived experience and I believe that enriches their lives. Despite, yes, there being some problematic kids in there.
You can expose your kids to different cultures without leaving them wide open to everything else. It's not a binary. The point is that home schooling lets you pick and choose.
> It very much is. No where else in life are people forced to mixed with the general unfiltered public.
I'm baffled by this. Many workplaces? Mass transit? Walking down the sidewalk? At a concert? Buying groceries? True, there don't all expose you to the full sweep of human existence at once but, in aggregate, it seems pretty similar to what you'd encounter at most public schools. What if they want a career in a hospital, or law enforcement, or social services, ... the list goes on.
You might hope that your child will live a privileged existence unbothered by the rabble, but it seems to me they need to be prepared for a future where they encounter all kinds of people. I'm sure this can be compatible with homeschooling but I can't see how it's not generally a disadvantage. (Though perhaps onerous clearly outweighed by other advantages, depending on the situation.)
The closest social equivalency to public school socialization I can think of is prison. You're stuck there for N hours per day with limited or zero control over what other people you're around. Maybe parts of military training might also be similar.
That's the kind of thing that is very much not like the "real world." It's more than just being "exposed" to less optimal peers (like you would on a bus), it's an entirely different social experience.
> Most workplaces are highly filtered. The whole interview process is specifically geared towards filtering out undesirable people.
This just isn't true or is born from a standpoint of extreme luck. Like have you genuinely paid attention to the people you work with? Coworkers, CEOs, the stuff people say in slack channels or the things people gossip about at work? The only way I think someone can genuinely hold an opinion like this is by being so unaware of what workplace politics that they are unaware that most workplaces are like Highschool 2. Even the professional ones. Especially the professional ones.
It's absolutely undeniable that interviewing is meant to filter out undesirable behavior. What in the world do you think it is? So many people cannot just walk in and start working next to you, very few will be selected.
You are pointing out behavior that is different, but not undesirable. Which is not being discussed. i.e., kids who distrust other kids learning is undesirable. As would people who create hostile work environments, or are inefficient, or unreliable, or don't have the right connections.
In my place of work people nearly universally went to top end universities, a much larger proportion than the normal population have phds. you think that's random? And more locally if you work on a sales team you are going to be hired to work directly with people that have certain shared traits that make them effective sellers. It's so obvious that interviewing is an active filter I'm not even sure what to do to convince someone that thinks otherwise.
I'm not sure how you equate any of that to workplace politics or gossip. Even if it was relevant, the fact that it is not a perfectly effective filter doesn't make it not a filter.
You don’t have to sit side-by-side rubbing shoulders and squabbling with rabble for 12 years in order to understand and deal with it, just like you don’t have to wrestle with gators for 12 years to learn respect for nature.
> You might hope that your child will live a privileged existence unbothered by the rabble
I think it's telling that the other responses seem to focus on exactly this; the idea that their child will exist in a class apart from the rabble, and will not have to interact with them.
It seems to speak to two very different views of community. On the one hand, there is community as a collection of all the people in a space: people who share local resources, frequent the same local businesses, and have the same local concerns. On the other, there is a community of choice: people who share the same social class, and possibly the same religion or cultural beliefs. I think it's fair to say that you can have both, but trying to say that you can belong solely to the communities you choose and treat everyone else as beneath notice sounds quite problematic, and it will absolutely not give children a correct or complete view of the world.
Isn't this exactly what society is built on though? Mutually beneficial interactions borne of choice, not compulsion? And isn't it the sane, rational thing to do to oppose people who compel you to join their community?
> No where else in life are people forced to mixed with the general unfiltered public
I think "forced" is doing a lot of work there. No, you're not forced to work alongside someone problematic. But quitting your job is quite an escalation to deal with the issue. Same with a troublesome neighbor. To say nothing of public transit, taking flights, interacting with other drivers on the road...
It absolutely is. If you are well equipped to navigate the adult world, you place yourself in hand-picked groups of people. I do not work with, socialize with, or live near a random sample of the population, and I highly doubt most people reading this thread do either!
Yeah but how do you LEARN the ability to do that? To keep that practice always in your mental backburner, and remembering how important it is? Why, you learn it by seeing the impacts from those succumbed to negative influences they surrounded themselves with!
You can't learn the application of hand-picking your people and environments if you don't first see the outcomes when such application is neglected, and understanding its importance from there. If you have the hand-picking done for you as well, you risk not learning the ability to do it yourself. Or how to handle the situations where you can't.
> ...a healthy community hand-picked by parents is not "the real world" though, is it?
It's much closer to the real world though, isn't it? Your child is likely going to live most of their life in similar communities to them, not a wide cross section of the public.
I think your reading is very black and white. Add some leeway to what I say. Hand-picked obviously doesn't mean all friends go through a psych screening on a daily basis, or that you have to helicopter-parent and tell your kids who to be friends with...
> or you have to helicopter-parent and tell your kids who to be friends with...
Isn't that essentially what you're describing, though? You literally talked about "healthy communities, hand-picked by parents to keep away problem children". No, you don't have to tell them who to be friends with... but you've pre-selected the pool of potential friends, so there's no instruction necessary.
I get that on one hand, such regulation is one of the reasons some parents do so, but the wide diversity of "oversight" is challenging.
In Washington, homeschooled students still have to occasionally connect at an actual school, or do some baseline testing.
In Louisiana, you just tell the state "we're homeschooling" and the state is "have fun with that" and the child is essentially off the grid.
Not for nothing, instances of child abuse/CSA in many correlates with the laxness of educational oversight in home schooling.
> And to add insult to injury, there's an increasing torrent of deranged ideologies teachers and professors share with students.
Ahh, this chestnut. A short jump to "teachers are training preschoolers to be furries and LGBT" and litterboxes in the classroom/bathroom.
For all your anecdotes my step daughter has plenty too. 10th graders who are barely literate, cannot do elementary math. Who when asked about their homeschool regime talk of waking at 10, 10.30, playing Fortnite or going on Tiktok for a few hours, and occasionally logging into some website to pretend like they've been working, or doing some mind numbingly simple exercise to show "participation".
> Ahh, this chestnut. A short jump to "teachers are training preschoolers to be furries and LGBT" and litterboxes in the classroom/bathroom.
Exactly. Notice how, when people complain about the "deranged ideologies" that teachers are teaching their kids, they either 1. stop short of actually naming those ideologies or 2. spout fever dreams that are statistically vanishingly rare.
Where I live the schools are quite good and the homeschoolers are fundamental religious families who won’t send their kids to schools where gay pride flags are allowed.
I’d pull our child out of school if the standards dropped but I think the majority of homeschoolers align with out of the mainstream poltical / religious views.
If schools are problematic or have kids that are problematic, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on investing in them to make them better, adding resources to support difficult kids, to help parents who are not doing well? As opposed to disengaging from them?
It is pretty hard for one parent to change things for the better, even if just for their child in one classroom. The administration and teachers have so many other things to deal with. It's much harder to change the entire school culture. You can volunteer, and you should!, but you still won't make as large an impact on your child's education as you would hope. In some ways, this is good, because there are lots of crazy parents out there who you don't want making impacts on your child's education, but it's also bad if you're not that crazy parent.
If the school system is damaging kids, it’s good to work to improve it, but you won't see results (if any—effecting systemic change is hard) until after your kids have already graduated, facing irreversible damage in the process.
If you’re willing to homeschool well, the positive impact on your kids is immediate.
> Who would plant a flower next to a sick or hostile one?
A gardener who understands that after that short grace period that plant will have to grow amongst those sick and hostile ones essentially and not only that, it will have to form a thriving ecosystem with them.
I get the idea of wanting to protect your child at all cost and wanting the best possible education for them. Rarely have I found that former students with over-protective parents that put them down a funnel of other kids from the same social and ideological background have really thrived. And I work in university level education meaning I get to see first hand what is usually the first phase in a persons life where they can decide for themselves how to do it. The people with self-confidence and stable roots who make the best, are usually those who "have seen it all", while those with alternative schooling backgrounds are either completely in their own world (often with rude awekenings) or constant feelings of inadequacy and comparison with others. That is anecdotal evidence by one educator, so details may matter.
Aside from those individual aspects, there absolutely is a societal aspect to that. If gated communities are the solution, then your society has to be in what is already a pretty dystopian position. Having those isolated silos mean in a world of isolated social media silos, we give our kids even less possibility to experience the reality of other members of the society we expect them to repair.
That shoulders them with an impossible task. My deep believe is that the goal of education is to prepare people for their life, but also to give them the tools to make the world they are sent into a better place. That requires a healthy dose of "knowing what is", especily if what is, is ugly.
>> Who would plant a flower next to a sick or hostile one?
> A gardener who understands that after that short grace period that plant will have to grow amongst those sick and hostile ones essentially and not only that, it will have to form a thriving ecosystem with them.
If, on the other hand, the gardener knows from experience that the flower will be suffocated, then it's pointless at best and cruel at worst.
He is a real rightoid based on other comments. HN disappointed me today, since you're the only one who noticed, others silently tolerate this behavior.
> Homeschoolers are some of the most resilient and well-behaved people I know.
I'm sure they exist, they may even exist as the majority, I will say for my part the homeschooled kids I knew through my church growing up were not any of these things. I would quite literally use the opposite of both those to describe them.
I'm not saying they represent the majority but they do exist and they were not well adjusted IMHO.
As with many topics I feel like "Yes, if you want to devote yourself fully to X thing you can do much better than Y professional", the problem is, again from my own experience, the people I knew who homeschooled their children were not professionals, they were not capable, and their children suffered for it. I want to stress, I fully believe it is possible for certain people with certain mentors/teachers to do better outside of the public (or private) school system. I just also believe that the odds of most people (making that decision for their children) to meet that bar are low. I also think that some of the better homeschooled experiences that I've seen are simply a super-private school by another name (various parents being or being subject experts and taking turns teaching coupled with many "field trip"-type trips with other homeschooled kids).
> there's an increasing torrent of deranged ideologies teachers and professors share with students.
Wait till you hear what the parents believe... I don't agree with everything taught or the way it's taught but being exposed to other types of people and ways of thinking is critical. I can guarantee you that had my parents been able to, they would have shielded me from a great number of ways of thinking. I worry that many homeschooled children grow up in a small echo chamber (we all live in echo chambers of difference sizes).
Can public school suck? Absolutely and I acknowledge that homeschooling might be the answer for some people, but only if you can afford to pay (with time or money) to educate your children completely which is almost certainly going to require working with other homeschooler parents to, essentially, build your own school. If you can bring in tutors/mentors/teachers that you vet and agree with and expose them to the world and new ideas/experiences then yeah, you are probably going to have good outcomes. If you plop them in front of a computer to follow a curriculum just to shield them from the "evils" of the world, well, I think you are going to have a bad time. Obviously there is a whole range of people in between those 2 extremes, I just feel that, on average, people trend towards the lower end of that spectrum.
Interesting song and I do agree with many points. For many years I've complained about lack of teaching basic skills (everything from home ec to budgeting and more), many of which I heard in this song. I think there was a little of the baby going out with the bathwater but overall I enjoyed it.
The one that exists with problem children and opinions you don’t like.
As a parent I get the impulse to remove my children from any potential harm but the real world has sharp edges. They need to be confident in that world not just smothered.
And really as the person who used the term it’s really up to you to define what you mean.
Can you pick even a single person that will agree with you on everything? You could be around 10 if your identical twins and there’d still be conflict.
Why is it more „natural” if the school does the picking? Besides, parents can’t command anyone to join. It’s not The Truman Show.
Is marriage not “real life” because you chose your partner? Does you choosing prevent disagreement, struggle, pain and growth? I don’t think so.
Why would I let anyone brainwash my kids with opinions that I don't like? Why do my kids have to be bullied by these problem children?
> As a parent
I guess you still want them to go to a good school, not a ghetto one. And most likely you don't want them to be brainwashed with ideas that you personally don't like.
> The one that exists with problem children and opinions you don’t like.
That's just not true though. Your job isn't going to force you to interact with people who disrupt the environment constantly. Those people are fired and removed from the group.
In functional workplaces, yes. In dysfunctional ones, sometimes you have to leave.
In the military, say, you don't get that option.
In your neighborhood, you can move, but that's a fairly difficult and expensive step. When someone moves in whose kids want to be gang members, or who wants to verbally abuse people out jogging, or whatever other antisocial behavior, you have to deal with it, at least for a while.
So you can't completely avoid the brokenness of the real world. (Note well: I am not saying that throwing a six year old into the deep end is the best way to prepare kids for this.)
> In functional workplaces, yes. In dysfunctional ones, sometimes you have to leave.
Agreed! And that is exactly what home-schooling families are doing. Choosing to leave a dysfunctional environment.
> In the military, say, you don't get that option.
Yep, and other government institutions, like prison. I don't think those are what anyone would call a typical life environment though.
> In your neighborhood, you can move, but that's a fairly difficult and expensive step. When someone moves in whose kids want to be gang members, or who wants to verbally abuse people out jogging, or whatever other antisocial behavior, you have to deal with it, at least for a while.
That's another dysfunctional environment, and also what the police are for.
> So you can't completely avoid the brokenness of the real world. (Note well: I am not saying that throwing a six year old into the deep end is the best way to prepare kids for this.)
You're right, you can't. The world has a lot of dysfunctional environments, and I agree that people need to learn how to deal with them. Knowingly forcing your child to be in one of those environments full-time for many years seems like a pretty horrible way to teach them that though, bordering on abusive.
And, to be clear, EVERY workplace will have people you don't like. Every. Single. One. No exceptions.
Kids needs to be taught resiliency and healthy mindsets, to a degree. They need to learn to live and let go, to learn their value isn't derived from what people think of them, to learn that embarrassment is self inflicted.
You just can't do that if you're only around people who don't challenge you. If you're in a nice, cushy, social bubble, you will develop self esteem and confidence issues.
Hilariously wrong. One who thinks such is either so overwhelmingly privileged he has never had to actually work to survive, or is a part of said "problem children" without self-awareness.
My job isn’t the totality of my life and you have very strange ideas about how quickly disruptive people actually get fired. You get plenty of unfiltered interaction in life. If anything I’d say the sort of thing you describe sounds more like an insular cult. Although even there you get misanthropic people, abuse and so on.
> My job isn’t the totality of my life and you have very strange ideas about how quickly disruptive people actually get fired. You get plenty of unfiltered interaction in life.
In what environment are you, as an adult, forced to interact with everyone who happens to show up? The only instances I can think of are other government-run institutions like the military or prison, and I don't think anyone would argue those are standard modes of "real life".
> If anything I’d say the sort of thing you describe sounds more like an insular cult.
> In what environment are you, as an adult, forced to interact with everyone who happens to show up?
Holding literally any job ever? I was a software engineer and I frequently had to interact with a wide range of folks for the sake of my professional career. QA, contractors, internal and external teams. I was paid to do so, unless you argue that I have the option to quit or something in which my response is I need to in fact eat and have stable income.
Google made billions by scamming the world with "free email" and a search engine that would "never display ads" or "censor content".
It was "exactly what customers wanted". Microsoft Windows is just as successful....financially speaking.
Now, if I could just get teenagers to pay more money for a magic digital rune, besides extracting all that juicy marketing data from their phone app... Because more money = better corporation.
But it's unwise to make money at any cost. It can cost your corporation much more in the long term. I see MS Windows on the brink of irreparable reputation damage. I believe Elon Musk is starting to work on MacroHard, and people might flood into that system just out of spite for Microsoft.
It must be tiring to keep seeking relief and finding the "right" solutions. Besides ongoing learning and research on your own, I encourage you to keep searching for the right psychiatrist you feel works for you, because the way they gather, organize and look at your data in a systematic manner that allows them to start trialing various plans besides just medications.
I'm sure you spent time writing what you shared, but from a physician standpoint it's not sufficient for actionable insight.
If your developing Asian country doesn't have the right physicians, then hopefully at some point you can see one in another country, and share that data with your own physicians.
I'm assuming you are asking about childhood symptoms. As a child I'm not troubling kid in class, but when I'm given freedom I walk around the house thinking, grinding teeth. While I did have good grades in class I make very trivial mistakes arithmatic my friends see and give slight smile. When it come to my OCD most of my compulsions were due to poor working memory.ex: did I count correctly?, did I wash my hands correctly? because my wonder. While I scored well at school it was by rigid work just before the exam week, while I saw other students more relaxed before the exam, I was thinking about how to cover up syllabus. This actually went to point exam anxiety which was my first encounter with a psychiatrist.
All of that is good information for you to organize in your head and in writing. But it is critically supplemented by the professional tools and experience psychiatrists and psychologists have. For all these conditions, you will always be your own best advocate, and ongoing self-education is critical. You can prompt a SOTA-LLM to help you organize the thoughts further, but always end up sharing that with a professional, who can help you understand its validity and dynamically test useful plans of action.
reply